Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Bill to be read the Third time.

LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Lanarkshire County Council.

To be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Lerwick Harbour.

To be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

University Development

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she will make a further announcement of Government policy towards university development in the 1970s.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I hope to announce the provisional recurrent grant for the academic year 1972–73 by the end of this year, and the recurrent grants for the whole of the 1972–77 quinquennium during the autumn of next year.

Mr. Lane: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that clear, but could she bear in mind, too, that it will be of great help to the universities, particularly over their capital development plans, if they can be given the earliest possible long-term indication not only of the pattern of expansion during the rest of the decade but of the Government's probable time scale as to decision-making and implementation over the next few years?

Mrs. Thatcher: I will certainly bear that in mind. My room for manoeuvre is limited because I cannot take decisions before I receive the advice of the U.G.C., and the U.G.C. is still collecting information on which to tender its advice.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Would the right hon. Lady inform us whether in these calculations medical education at university level in general and at all such schools as the medical school in Durham University will be included?

Mrs. Thatcher: Medical schools at universities come within the U.G.C. grants.

Mr. Alan Williams: Could the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to make it clear that the present alarming reports of graduate unemployment are not, as some of the educational flat-earthers would have us believe, evidence that too many graduates are being produced,


because we produce fewer than our competitors, but that it is just one more cruel symptom of the Chancellor's economic ineptitude? Secondly, will she take this chance, in view of the insidious article in May's "Economic Trends", to make it clear whether that article, written by two of her officials, is the start of a great Conservative retreat from the Robbins criteria?

Mrs. Thatcher: The decisions will be taken in accordance with my original reply.

School Meals

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is now in a position to state the reduction in the numbers of school dinners being taken consequent on the recent introduction of increased prices.

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she now has available the numbers of children eating school meals since the increased charges.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has now any information on the number of schoolchildren taking school meals in the county of Derbyshire, both immediately before and after the cost of the school meal was last increased.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage decline in the number of school meals consumed in the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Rother Valley Division Executive Area since the increase in the price of school meals.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number and proportion of schoolchildren in the Inner and Outer London areas, respectively, who have ceased to take school meals following the price increase therefor.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her estimate of the reduction in the number of children taking school meals following recent price increases.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what are the latest figures for the take-up of school meals on a national, regional and local basis; and how these compare with corresponding figures for March this year.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total of school meals taken in all schools of the Derby Borough Education Authority in the week beginning Monday, 14th June, 1971, as compared to the week beginning 11th January, 1971.

Mr. Concannon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage drop in bought school meals for Nottinghamshire over the past year.

Mrs. Thatcher: I would refer hon. Members to my reply of 5th July to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). This gave full details of the take-up of school dinners in September, 1970, and May, 1971, by reference both to the overall position in England and Wales and to the areas of the individual local education authorities. The Department has not collected information for other dates in 1970 or 1971, for parts of the areas of local education authorities, or for individual schools.—[Vol. 820. c. 299–310.]

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I consider that Question and Answer to have been inspired—those given last Monday, I think it was? Does she recognise that the White Paper on New Policies in Public Spending which was issued by the Government said that there would be a net saving on school dinners of £20 million this year and £38 million in 1974–75, and that that £38 million is the exact amount of the tax concession given to people with incomes of more than £4,005? Can she say how many primary schools she intends to build with the savings she is going to make because of this disgusting exercise? Or is she engaged in another intellectually dishonest exercise such as she admitted in Eastbourne last week?

Mrs. Thatcher: As to the first point, the school meals subsidy will in fact increase. As to the second point, most people were delighted with the new primary school building programme of £132 million over three years.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the catastrophic fall which has occurred in Derbyshire, with the resultant sacking of scores of people engaged in the preparation and supervision of school meals, exemplifies accurately the class bias of her Department? To ensure that she is not left with support only from within the narrow confines of her own party, will she affirm to the House that there will be no further increase in the price of school meals during the life of this Parliament?

Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper, he will see that the latter part of his supplementary question is not correct.

Mr. Lane: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on each of the two occasions when the last Labour Government increased the price of school meals the numbers taking school meals first fell away and then rose again, and is not this likely to repeat itself on this occasion?

Mrs. Thatcher: We expect the numbers taking school meals to rise again in the autumn, in common with the usual pattern after there has been an increase in price. There will also be a further increase in the numbers eligible for free school meals when the supplementary benefit scale rises again.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that because of the increase in the price of school meals many thousands of school children eat sandwich lunches in draughty corridors and damp cloakrooms? What will she do about this?

Mrs. Thatcher: We recently put out a circular to local education authorities about arrangements for those who took sandwiches to school, setting out the Department's views on the arrangements that should be made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, increases in the price of school meals have been made before and there was nothing unusual about their being made under his Government.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that the price of school meals after adjustment in relation to the average earnings of parents is now more favourable to parents than it was before the price was raised,

and is it not desirable as a general principle that, as earnings rise, the price of school meals should rise?

Mrs. Thatcher: From my information, and taking a very modest estimate of this year's average earnings, the price of school meals in relation to average earnings this year is approximately the same as it was 16 years ago.

Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Lady confirm or deny the revelation this week in her reply to Mr. Tudor David when he questioned her about the hypothecation of revenue and when she is alleged to have said, with a shimmering smile, that this is merely an intellectual exercise indulged in when one has nothing else to say.

Mrs. Thatcher: Indeed, my comment was about my questioner's comments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will increase the income limit for entitlement to free school meals, particularly in respect of larger families.

Mrs. Thatcher: I increased the net income limits in April, and I shall be doing so again in September. These increases have the effect of bringing more families of all sizes into initial entitlement for some or all of their children, and in the case of larger families with existing entitlement for some of their children, of extending that entitlement to cover others.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been some disappointment over the refusal of applications, in some degree, perhaps, stimulated by her Department's own very attractive advertisements? Will she, when both wages and prices are rising, take a generous view of these limits?

Mrs. Thatcher: The limits will be increased again when the supplementary limits go up in September, and we expect quite a lot more children to become eligible for free school meals when that occurs.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the right hon. Lady agree to disregard the cost of travel for school children in determining the income limits now that the transport charges are so terribly high?

Mrs. Thatcher: The local education authority has discretion about paying fares for travelling to school within the statutory limits.

Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Lady consider the situation in Liverpool, where a report from the school meals organiser shows that one million fewer school meals this year will be issued to school children because of the higher price and also because of the growing unemployment in Liverpool, which has seriously affected the situation?

Mrs. Thatcher: I will, of course, look at any situation. My impression was that in Liverpool there was an especially good school meals service.

Mr. Simon Mahon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what communication she has received from the Association of Municipal Corporations' Education Committee relating to the provision of free milk in schools for all children up to 12 years of age; and what reply she has sent.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The Association wrote to the Department early in June suggesting that authorities should be given discretionary powers in the Education (Milk) Bill to continue to provide free milk for primary school pupils up to 12. This matter has been thoroughly debated in Committee.

Mr. Mahon: That is a most unsatisfactory reply. Is the right hon. Lady aware that most of us are asking how the Government can possibly justify this arrogant policy in the face of universal condemnation from the A.M.C. and other social works organisations? Is it not a sign of greatness in a nation to cherish its children? Is this not a miserable policy, and are the Government not ashamed of themselves?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the Standing Committee which has been going into this in great detail has now reported. He will find it helpful to read the arguments both ways. I would only say, in all modesty, that I do not remember serving on a Committee on which the Government's arguments have so thoroughly prevailed.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend apply himself to the question of milk

supply? Is there any evidence available that a diminution of milk demand has actually occurred in the schools as a result of these measures? Is it not a fact that demand for milk is now the same as, if not larger than, it was before the changes?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that the changes so far have been quite minimal. In any case, as my hon. Friend knows so well, one of the provisions of the Bill allows milk to be provided at secondary school level on payment, a right which was not previously available and which might well result in increased take-up.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is aware that, although school meals are supplied at the reduced rate of 25p in special schools, mainly because the children cannot get home for dinner, there are three units in Salford for handicapped children in a similar difficulty, but who have to pay the full amount of 60p per week and that this anomaly also exists in other towns; and if she will take steps to reduce charges for these children.

Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities have discretion under the regulations to decide the level of the charge made for the school dinner for pupils in special schools. Special units, unlike special schools, receive no formal individual approval or recognition by the Department and the discretion does not, therefore, extend to them. Ordinary arrangements for remission of charges apply and authorities also have powers to provide benefits such as breakfast and mid-morning refreshments free or at a nominal charge for any pupil who has a long journey to school.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister admit that this is an anomaly which is quite meaningless to the parents of handicapped children? Why did she take four months to reply to my letter? Why did she fail to give me the answer then that she has given now? She did not then indicate that there was a local responsibility. Indeed, she accepted the State's responsibility in this matter.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is an anomaly. If the hon. Gentleman had to wait that length of time for an answer, I can only


apologise to him. It seems that he now has the right answer.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters she has received on the subject of increases in school meal charges and the proposed cessation of free school milk to primary schoolchildren of the age of seven years.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have to date received about 400 letters, including 13 petitions, concerning the changes in the school meals and milk arrangements.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Lady aware that that is absolutely nothing compared with what she will get as the autumn and winter progress and when the full nutritional harm of these measures comes to be felt as a result of one million fewer children taking school meals? If she finds the present trend continuing by, say, the end of the winter term, will she revise the prices downwards?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have no medical evidence of nutritional harm; nor, I believe, has anyone else.

Mr. Longden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this blanket pauperisation of all parents is most extraordinary—this assumption on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are no parents in England who can afford to give meals and milk to their children?

Mrs. Thatcher: I can only repeat what I said, that I have no medical evidence of nutritional harm, and none has been sent to me.

Mr. Spearing: Among the letters which the right hon. Lady has received, is there one from the Association of Education Committees asking her to review the Measure so as to give L.E.A.s optional power to provide free milk in primary schools for the seven to 11 age group? If so, will she say what reply she has sent?

Mrs. Thatcher: There is another Question on that precise point.

Sex Guidance and Education

5. Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will call for reports from all local education authorities about the method, content and availability of sex guidance

and education being given in their schools.

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Inspectorate look at the provision of sex education in schools as part of their regular work and through their review of health education.

Mrs. Short: Does the right hon. Lady recall the sad case of the Bradford child whose difficulties were resolved thanks to the generosity of the Calthorpe clinic in Birmingham? Does she recall that one of the most distressing features of that case was that the child had received no information either from her parents or from school? Will she look again at the implications of this and satisfy herself that all local education authorities are carrying out their duties towards their teenage boys and girls?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not recollect that case. I do not have it in front of me, and it is not referred to in the Question. Curriculum matters are for local education authorities and, as the answer to the Question specifies, Her Majesty's Inspectorate keep these matters under review as part of their ordinary work.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Ignoring the crude and irrelevant propaganda of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), may I return to the Question and ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that programmes of sex education, which I think are a good thing, are planned in co-operation with parents?

Sir G. Nabarro: Speak for yourself!

Mrs. Thatcher: It is both the wish of the Department and the practice of local education authorities that the co-operation of parents is secured before the programmes are shown to children.

Ardwick (Official Visit)

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will pay an official visit to the Ardwick division of Manchester

Mrs. Thatcher: I have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Kaufman: Why does not the right hon. Lady have the courage to come to my constituency, where more than 1,000 children have stopped taking school meals


since she put up the price, and explain to the parents of Ardwick why she has literally taken the food out of the mouths of their children.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have been to Manchester on many occasions, fortunately not in the company of the hon. Gentleman. As I explained in my answer to a previous Question, the price of the school meal now bears approximately the same relationship to average earnings as it did 16 years ago.

Western Primary School, Winchester

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are her plans for the rebuilding of the Western Primary School, Winchester.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): My right hon. Friend is considering the Hampshire Local Education Authority's proposal to replace this school in the programme of work to start in 1973–74. She hopes to announce details of the programme shortly.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Minister agree that Winchester has a not inconsiderable name in educational circles and that the conditions in this primary school call for urgent action?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir, I gladly accept that. The very fact that the project is under close consideration for 1973–74 gives the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Secondary Education (Reorganisation)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities in England and Wales have not submitted schemes for the reorganisation of secondary education.

Mrs. Thatcher: Eight authorities have never submitted a scheme of reorganisation and nine whose plans were rejected before June, 1970, have not submitted revised plans.

Mr. Dormand: As there are 163 local education authorities, do not those figures demonstrate beyond all doubt that the vast majority of people concerned with education agree that comprehensive edu-

cation is the most effective form of secondary education? Will the Secretary of State tell the House that the withdrawal of the Labour circular on comprehensive education a year ago, with such a fanfare of trumpets, has resulted in only two withdrawals in 12 months, and does not this demonstrate beyond all doubt that the Government's policy is an absolute sham and completely doctrinaire?

Mrs. Thatcher: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, the important factor is not the plan but the point at which the local education authority submits proposals for a change in the character of a school, when whoever is Secretary of State has to consider those proposals.

Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many parents are dissatisfied that reorganisation does not provide for single-sex education at secondary level?

Mrs. Thatcher: That is one of the factors I take into account when considering the proposals under Section 13. I am very much aware how strongly some parents feel on that point.

Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Lady say what use it is for a local authority to submit a scheme under her Government when she messes them about in the disgraceful way she has followed with the Borough of Barnet in her own constituency, or by her almost certainly unlawful action under Section 68 in the case of the Rydens School in Surrey? What is the use of submitting a scheme now? Why does not the local authority simply submit a Section 13 notice straight away?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think the right hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. Barnet has submitted Section 13 notices. Decisions have been given on the Barnet Section 13 proposals, although I believe there is one outstanding. A number have been approved and a few have been disapproved, in the exercise of my statutory duty.

School Children (Clothing)

Mr. H. Boardman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of disputes concerning suitability of apparel for school wear


being subject to the opinions of individual school heads, she will request local education authorities to lay down guide lines to apply to all local authority schools within their jurisdiction.

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. I believe this is best left to the discretion of local education authorities.

Mr. Boardman: Is the Minister aware that disputes of this nature are becoming more frequent, and that they cause embarrassment and annoyance to the head teachers concerned and very often humiliation to the parents? If the local education authorities have these powers why does not she insist that they use them?

Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities are as well able as the Government, if not more able, to judge the suitability of school uniforms or school wear.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is this not a matter on which sensible heads will consult the pupils, and are there not instances in which that has been done with the most admirable results?

Mrs. Thatcher: In the vast majority of cases any difficulties are dealt with sensibly by headmasters and by school managers and governors.

Out-of-School Activities (Insurance)

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice she gives to local education authorities concerning insurance cover for schoolchildren on official out-of-school activities.

Mrs. Thatcher: No general advice has been given. Authorities were advised in 1967 to consider the need for insurance cover in respect of the special risks incurred by pupils visiting industry. The Department's Education Pamphlet No. 53 draws attention to the insurance question in connection with activities afloat and in the air.

Mr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. In the light of the continuing and welcome trend for schoolchildren to participate in out-of-school activities, would she now consider once again circularising local authorities to try to ensure that adequate insurance cover is provided by all authorities?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have already pointed out that this matter is dealt with in Education Pamphlet No. 53. We will see whether there is need to up-date the advice.

Polytechnics (Expenditure on Books)

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much is spent on books annually for each student in polytechnics; and what is the comparable figure for universities.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In 1968–69 current expenditure by the universities averaged £10·65 per student on the purchase of books. I have no comparable figure for polytechnics or other Further Education colleges.

Mr. Deakins: Is it not disturbing that the Secretary of State has no figures for spending on books in one of the two main branches of higher education in this country? If such figures were available, would they not clearly show that the amount spent on books in polytechnics is very much less than the amount spent on books in universities? Would the right hon. Lady not agree that this is no way of providing the further number of students which is needed in higher education, and that we should provide appropriate facilities regardless of whether students are at polytechnics or at universities?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not trying to evade the question, but my difficulty is that in the year of which I can speak there were only four polytechnics. This is such a new development that statistics are in an early stage.

Mr. Alan Williams: Would it not be an easy operation for the Department to approach the 30 polytechnics to establish the current position or the situation which applied last year? If the polytechnics are not to become the secondary moderns of the educational system, these matters should not be masked by the working of the binary system.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Since this is a local authority system, it has not been the practice of successive Governments to send for full statistics of this kind. I have no doubt that as the system proceeds we shall be able to compare like with like; increased emphasis is being given to the capital works programme in


polytechnic libraries, which I accept is a very important matter.

Smoking in Schools and Colleges

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will introduce legislation to regulate smoking by pupils and students in educational establishments and prohibit the siting of vending machines for tobacco products therein.

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that legislation is the right way to regulate smoking in schools and colleges. The report of the Royal College of Physicians, which included a recommendation in favour of restrictions on the siting of vending machines, is being studied.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend pay some regard to the fact that, if it had not been for the cantankerous behaviour of her colleague the Secretary of State for Social Services, a very desirable Clause inserted during the Standing Committee proceedings into the Tobacco (Health Hazards) Bill prohibiting vending machines in the precincts of all educational institutions, colleges and schools would have, been implemented? Would she have regard to that important provision in that Bill, or, if she cannot accept that legislation, will she introduce substitution legislation?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have never found my right hon. Friend cantankerous with me, but I confess that he has never been provoked. The Report of the Royal College of Physicians is still being studied, which I feel is the best way to go about the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Patrick Wall—Question No. 22.

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have Question No. 21.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's Question has already been answered.

Student Unions

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek powers to institute a registrar for student unions.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am considering this possibility.

Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members would like to see students have greater control of the administration of their universities, but that such action is impossible unless there is a registrar who can control such behaviour as the imposition of the closed shop, grants to revolutionary organisations, and so on, which is taking place today?

Mrs. Thatcher: The problem is quite complex. It is not only a question of setting up a registrar of student unions, but a question of deciding his precise responsibilities. I would point out that the university authorities have a general responsibility for supervising the constitution of the unions.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the provision of a registrar of student unions was a recommendation by the Select Committee on Education which reported in 1969? Is it not time that something was done, not only about that recommendation but about the other recommendations which were put forward by that Select Committee?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have been asked about this particular matter, and I have given the reply that the matter is being considered.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I appreciate that this is a difficult matter, but would the Secretary of State take urgent action to look at the problem in many universities where students on political grounds are being stopped from fully participating in the activities of student unions? If we cannot have a registrar, can we not have something else?

Mrs. Thatcher: There are a number of Questions later which raise that matter.

Mr. Alan Williams: If the right hon. Lady is considering action, what consultation is she having in the process of that consideration?

Mrs. Thatcher: We have not yet reached the stage of consultation. I feel it better that we should get further along the road before deciding whether to recommend the introduction of a registrar. No decision has yet been taken.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science


whether she has included in her consideration of the future of student unions the decision of the University of York Student Union to withhold funds from the University of York Monday Club while granting them not only to societies connected with the political parties but to the Anarchists, International Socialists, Spartacists, Socialist Society, Women's Liberation, etc.; and what action she will take.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now make a statement on the use of public funds by students unions at universities.

Mrs. Thatcher: Some changes in the arrangements governing the payment of union fees are under consideration.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not these odious tactics reminiscent of those of Nazi students under the Weimar Republic and a disgrace to institutions which pride themselves on academic freedom? By setting up a registrar or by making membership of students' unions voluntary, or in some other way, will she do her best as early as possible to see that natural justice is secured?

Mrs. Thatcher: Most of us would not like any restrictions on freedom of speech of the kind that we appear to have seen, or restrictions on academic freedom. We have made extensive inquiries with the vice-chancellors and with the polytechnics about the payment and the amount of union fees and about the expenditure and arrangements for scrutinising the accounts. We have had a good deal of information in and we are now seeing how best to decide what to do.

Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her answer will be very welcome to a number of hon. Members, probably on both sides of the House? If evidence is produced of gross discrimination in a particular university, will she be prepared to make representations to the vice-chancellor about it?

Mrs. Thatcher: One would be very reluctant to interfere with the freedom of the authorities of the universities. One has to be careful that one does not lose more than one gains. It is, of course, open to individual Members to make representations.

Mr. Dalyell: Who are the Spartacists?

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made in the course of her inquiry of the number of students who seek to resign from the National Union of Students and find it legally impossible to do so; and whether, in the light of these breaches of civil rights, she will hasten to amend the laws and regulations which have created this situation.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have made no estimate, but I am aware of the anxiety of some students who are members of the N.U.S. through the corporate affiliation of their college or university union. I understand that the N.U.S. Executive is now looking into this. Meanwhile students who are individual members of the N.U.S. can resign at any time.

Mr. King: Can there have been a comparable situation, in which union subscriptions are paid on behalf of members, whether or not they desire them to be paid, and from which they cannot retract, particularly when the funds of that union are poured out in various curious ways of which those members do not approve? Is this not in anyone's political book a monstrous invasion of civil liberty and a degree of paternalism which is insupportable?

Mrs. Thatcher: We are, as I explained in answer to an earlier Question, looking at the method of payment of fees to student unions by local education authorities. A number of factors are involved and our conclusions will be announced when they are ready.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the problem not that of individual membership of the National Union of Students but that of the automatic membership of those who are corporate members of local unions? It is they who not able to resign. Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven students at Bradford University have made three unsuccessful attempts to resign and that an Oxford graduate, Mr. Antony Russell, has also made an attempt but has failed?

Mrs. Thatcher: I know of four cases, not the seven to which my hon. Friend referred. The N.U.S. are looking into this matter.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Lady agree that there is no individual


hardship incurred by students in these cases and that it is administratively convenient to collect fees in this manner?

Mrs. Thatcher: It is possibly more than a question of administrative convenience. This is one reason why we are inquiring into it.

Naval Architecture

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish figures of the number of graduates in the past five years who have qualified in naval architecture.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Information about students obtaining first degrees in naval architecture is not separately identified in the Department statistics.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister has given a disappointing reply. However, will he concede that, no matter how few naval architects have qualified, there is a danger in view of the problems of the shipbuilding industry that a supply will be created which will exceed demand?

Mr. van Straubenzee: This essentially is a matter for individual universities, as the hon. Gentleman knows since I understand that he read a course of naval architecture. I am certain that they will take a long view of the situation rather than be influenced by the ups and downs of the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. John Wells: In view of the length of these courses, could my hon. Friend undertake to examine the supply of both naval architects and marine engineers in future? Since he has said that figures are not available, could he look at the situation and try to make inquiries, and then give some encouragement?

Mr. van Straubenzee: If my hon. Friend reads the reply, he will see that I said that this particular discipline is not separately identified in the statistics; but I will certainly examine any information my hon. Friend wishes to give me. However, this is essentially a matter for the universities.

European Economic Community

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what studies her Department has made of the effect on the British educational system of

entry into the Common Market; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: No changes in the British educational system will be required as a condition of entry into the Common Market. The Treaty of Rome refers only to
mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications
in the context of freedom to practice a profession or calling in another country. The implications of the proposals to implement this part of the Treaty are being studied.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Lady not agree that, apart from these specific references in the Treaty of Rome, British educational institutions are bound to be influenced in all kinds of ways? Would it not be wise for her Department to set up a general study group to assess the possible impact over the next five years?

Mrs. Thatcher: Needless to say, we are looking very carefully at the possible impact of entry, but I do not think the Treaty of Rome, or even entry itself, will require any major changes in some of our traditional rôles of education in this country, particularly with regard to the control of curricula.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Is the right hon. Lady aware, when she talks of mutual recognition of qualifications, that there is still not mutual recognition of school certificates between Scotland and England? Should not this matter be put in order before we look at Europe?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that we could wait quite so long as that to look at Europe.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position over the E.E.C., and assure us that there will be absolutely no change in the control of education in this country should we go in, and that things will remain exactly as they are, under her control—as she will be the Secretary of State in the years to come?

Mrs. Thatcher: The Treaty of Rome itself requires no changes. There probably would be changes brought about by greater contact between nations and possibly by the wish to bring them about in this country.

Mr. Alan Williams: But the right hon. Lady must realise that mutual recognition implies that there will be some agreement on course contents in certain professions, perhaps in the legal profession? Could she therefore put in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the benefit of hon. Members a list of those changes which have already taken place in the Six and any indications which she may have of the changes which would be required in this country, even if she considers them to be minor?

Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a specific Question, I will of course give him as much information as we have.

Primary Schools (Expenditure)

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how she proposes to implement her policy of spending the money saved on school milk on other projects for primary schools.

Mrs. Thatcher: Last October the Government announced that the starts programme of primary school building improvements for 1972–73 would be increased from £11 million to £35·5 million in England. I notified individual local education authorities of their shares of that programme at the end of last year.

Dr. Marshall: In view of that reply, can the right hon. Lady tell us exactly how the money spent on school milk is to be used?

Mrs. Thatcher: It is inevitable that, if one is switching priorities, one reduces expenditure on one matter in order to spend more on another. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman of Aneurin Bevan's quotation:
'The language of Socialism is the language of priorities.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the growing indignation on this issue, the growing opposition to the imposition of these charges, and the pressure which she is coming under in the Cabinet? What will the Government do about removing these charges?

Mrs. Thatcher: I did not know that it was even the hon. Member's policy to remove all charges for school meals and milk, which would cost £275 million a

year. I am well aware that on this side of the House and in many primary schools, parents, teachers and pupils are delighted that they have some prospect of having their education in buildings far better than hon. Members opposite could provide.

Live Animal Experiments

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will appoint a commission to study and publicise methods of research which obviate the need for the use of living animals in experiments, with a view to bringing about a substantial early reduction in the number of live animal experiments.

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir.

Mr. Booth: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is considerable evidence to show that cell and culture tissue tests can be more effective, more reliable and cheaper than tests done on live animals? Will she appoint a commission to study this, instead of continuing the present practice of testing on live animals when this is believed to be unnecessary?

Mrs. Thatcher: Where there is a suitable alternative available, most scientists are very anxious to use it. However, there are a number of cases in which, I believe rightly, new drugs are properly screened on animals before being tested on human beings. We debated this matter quite fully in an Adjournment debate on 31st March.

Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the use of the phrase "live animals" in connection with experiments conjures up so many emotive views that it might be better for her to appoint the sort of commission the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) suggested? It would, among other things, be able to point out that many so-called experiments on live animals are concerned with nutritional and other matters which cause the animals no discomfort whatever, and that might clear a great deal of air.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Littlewood Report had certain things to say about experiments on live animals and I quoted some of them in the Adjournment debate to which I referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on 13th June, 1971 on the economy, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barnett: In that broadcast the Chancellor of the Exchequer was charged with cynical deception on prices and in a remarkable reply he said that he had been successful in reducing the rate of price increases. As the rate of increase to May, 1970, was 6·1 per cent. and this year it is 9·8 per cent., may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say which system of arithmetic his right hon. Friend is using?

The Prime Minister: The interviewer did not charge my right hon. Friend with any such thing because it is not the job of B.B.C. interviewers to charge Ministers with such matters. In dealing with prices, my right hon. Friend pointed out, I think rightly, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) will agree, that it takes time for wage inflation to work through into cost inflation.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Answer the question.

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition may chuckle at this, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has already revealed that he, the then Prime Minister, chose the date of the General Election to avoid the point at which wage increases were working through to price increases—and he is constantly bemoaning his failure.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: While we do not doubt that the 13th June statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer then represented Government policy, however inadequately, we should be interested to know whether it will represent Government policy on 13th July and 13th August. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we shall have reflationary measures before the House rises for the

Summer Recess or whether yesterday's report of the meeting of the National Economic Development Council was misleading?

The Prime Minister: The reports I have seen of the N.E.D.C. meeting yesterday stated that there was a general discussion of questions affecting inflation and that the Secretary-General had been asked to work with members of the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. and the Government to see what proposals could be put forward at the next N.E.D.C. meeting in August. There was no firm statement about reflation or anything connected with it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept what my right hon. Friend said, which is that he is considering this matter and that if he decides at any time that more measures are necessary, he will indicate them to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. William Price: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to people writing to him asking for a referendum on the Common Market.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since 22nd June making representations against his refusal to hold a referendum before taking Great Britain into the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: Precise figures are not available but a number of the letters I receive on the Common Market refer to the possibility of a referendum. The replies have explained that it is Parliament's responsibility to decide this issue and that a referendum would be contrary to our constitutional practice.

Mr. Price: Is it not clear that those in this House who argue for a referendum are not concerned about principles at all but are engaged on a third-rate gimmick based on a belief that they would win? Is it not also clear that the moment public opinion changes, we shall hear no more about the need for a referendum from these self-appointed defenders of the constitution?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to examine or comment on what may be the motives of hon. Members and others.


However, I feel that what the hon. Gentleman said coincides with the view expressed on many occasions both by the Leader of the Opposition and myself.

Mr. Tuck: The Prime Minister said yesterday and today that Parliament must decide. Will he now answer the question he so deftly ducked two weeks ago? In view of the fact that he stated quite clearly before the General Election that it would be unthinkable for Britain to enter the Common Market unless a majority of the British people—not the British Parliament, but the British people—were in favour of entry and as neither the present Government nor the present Parliament has a mandate from the British people either to enter or to oppose entry, will he now honour that commitment of his by testing the opinion of the electorate either in a referendum or a General Election—we prefer a General Election—before taking this irrevocable and most tremendous step in British history, or is he afraid to do so? Let him answer "Yes" or "No", and not wriggle.

The Prime Minister: The answer to both questions is "No".

Sir R. Cary: If a referendum were held, would it not be almost impossible to compile a suitable questionnaire to put before the electors?

The Prime Minister: Those who have studied referenda, and especially the experience of certain other countries, have always come to the conclusion that one of the greatest disadvantages lies in the method of framing the questions. One has seen other countries in which this has quite obviously led to abuse. This has been one of the strongest arguments against the referendum.
There is, secondly, the question whether a referendum is purely an advisory matter or whether it binds Parliament. If it binds Parliament, then Parliament gives up all its powers on what most of us consider to be one of the major issues of the day.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The Prime Minister said that I oppose a referendum, and I agree—I have always done so, as he has. The idea of an advisory referendum was not then put forward, but I still agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this question. But since he said, rightly, that the decision must be taken

by Members of Parliament, each of them taking responsibility for his decision in the matter, will he look again at the White Paper which he published yesterday, since it did not give Members of Parliament the information required on a number of questions, of which I am prepared to supply him with a list—questions which I and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have put at successive Question Times on some of the key issues on the terms? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that in the very important "take note" debate which we are to have later this month, Ministers will be instructed to be as accommodating as possible in drawing aside the veil which still remains in the White Paper and giving answers to the questions which the House has a right to put?

The Prime Minister: The White Paper has set out as clearly as we can all the arrangements which have been reached in the negotiations. I think that the comments of practically the whole of the British Press today have shown that it believes that the matter is set out fully and clearly—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues have any particular question to ask in the debate, that is the purpose of the debate, which I described in my announcement, quite deliberately, as an exploratory debate. My colleagues and I will do our utmost to answer all the questions which are asked in the debate.

Mr. Harold Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question deals with a referendum.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on subjects for which he is responsible since 18th June, 1971.

The Prime Minister: About 3,500, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that that figure is slightly less than


the number of people who at this moment are exercising their responsibility in Greenwich? Does he realise that if he goes on television tonight, with the usual collusion of the B.B.C. before the poll closes, and pours out another load of Common Market rubbish, the electors of Greenwich will be voting to the tune of more than 70 per cent. in favour of the anti-Common Market Labour candidate?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that that supplementary question has any relevance to the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHEND

Mr. Pentland: asked the Prime Minister when he last made an official visit to Southend.

Mr. Urwin: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Southend.

The Prime Minister: I have not made an official visit to Southend since becoming Prime Minister, and have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Pentland: I wish the Prime Minister would do so, because he must be aware of the deep anger prevailing in the development areas about the Government's disgraceful decision to locate the V.A.T. headquarters at Southend. Is he aware that in the Northern Region we have the highest unemployment rate for over 30 years; that we shall have 24,000 youngsters coming along in a few weeks time looking for jobs; and that the prospects there are grim indeed? Therefore, will he not reverse his decision? If he does not, he will be condemned as having complete indifference to the terrible situation which at present prevails in the development areas.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is absolutely wrong. I believe that there has been great misunderstanding about this case which, like all matters of dispersal, is very difficult to settle. As I think my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made clear on Tuesday, nearly three-quarters of the staff operating V.A.T. will be in local offices spread over the country. The increase

at Southend will be an increase in headquarters staff, and that is because the headquarters is already based on Southend. We cannot at the moment say exactly what the numbers will be, but certainly three-quarters will be in regional offices, some of whom will quite obviously be in the development areas. As to indifference, it was under Conservative Governments that both the main initiatives for dispersal of Government personnel from London were taken. They were taken in 1963 by a Conservative Government, and by myself in this Conservative Government.

Mr. Urwin: The Prime Minister must surely now be aware that this decision is regarded by all shades of political opinion in the development areas as an utter negation of the strong regional policies he promised at the last General Election. This decision on the V.A.T. centre means that there has been a complete betrayal of the needs and requirements of the development areas. Does the right hon. Gntleman realise that there are at present 4,765 young people unemployed in the Northern Region alone? Will he not now, at least temporarily, abandon sacred cows and, if he will not visit Southend, will he at least come to the development areas and explain the justice behind his decision?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does his cause no good by the sort of remarks he has just made. If there is criticism of this decision in the development areas, it is because certain hon. Members opposite have been saying that 10,000 people are being put into Southend instead of being put into Clyde-side or Tyneside. This is certainly not the case. It is not yet possible, for obvious reasons, to say how many staff there will be, but of that staff, three-quarters will be in regional offices spread over the country. It is not possible to put all of them in a development area. What is happening at Southend is an expansion of the headquarters staff, which has to deal with the whole question of V.A.T.

Dame Irene Ward: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will give me the great pleasure of letting me say that I would much rather he came to the North of England than went to Southend, because


it is essential that he should explain to unbiased people in the North of England what the policy is. It is rather disconcerting to the North of England when the policy which he has advocated this afternoon just has not got through. Will he come to the North of England, and especially to Tynemouth?

The Prime Minister: I should be perfectly happy to go to the North-East. Having implemented, or having been responsible for implementing, the original Hailsham Plan, I doubt whether there are many Ministers in either Government who know more about what has been done in the North-East than I. It is not possible to disperse all central Government work from London, but a major operation is taking place in Government to disperse from London to the development areas.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's own argument that the regional staff on which he appears to lay weight must be scattered over the country? What is within the Government's control is where the headquarters staff is located. On that matter he has decided deliberately, not in favour of centralisation in London, but in favour of a non-development area as against a development area.

The Prime Minister: I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman, as I thought he knew from his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when this matter was investigated, that as the Customs—[Interruption.]—I am very surprised to hear that comment. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it was not investigated but the Leader of the Opposition says that they turned it down. That difference of view may explain a great deal.
To return to this very serious point, what is happening is that there will be an expansion of the Customs headquarters at Southend to deal with the headquarters part of V.A.T.

Sir S. McAdden: While welcoming the overwhelming interest which hon. Members seem to take in my constituency, may I say one word for myself and ask a question? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to site the Customs and Excise headquarters in Southend was taken, not by him, but by the previous Government and that what is now pro-

posed is merely a limited extension of the facilities in Southend, whereas the regional facilities, as my right hon. Friend said, will be spread throughout the country?
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, although there seems to be a unanimous desire on the part of hon. Members to send unpleasant things to Southend, such as the third London Airport, they seem to be very unhappy when my right hon. Friend sends somehing pleasant to Southend?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a valid point.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: In view of the difficulties that the Prime Minister has got himself into, would not the ideal solution be for him to scrap the whole idea of V.A.T.? If he is not prepared to do that, has he thought of siting the headquarters in Accrington, which would have the approval of all hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: I remember that the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister said that, as the Community had adopted V.A.T., this was one of the tax measures he was prepared to accept if we were to go into the Community. [Interruption.] I think that I report the Leader of the Opposition perfectly accurately. I hope that that is still his view.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Speaker, having been foreclosed earlier at your discretion, on Questions affecting the Common Market, may I say to the Prime Minister that I said many times from that side of the House and from this that, if the terms were right for going into the Common Market, there would be certain very unpalatable burdens which Britain must bear in return for the advantages accruing from joining? One was V.A.T. The other was the common agricultural policy. I made it clear from that bench, as I have from this, that the idea of supporting V.A.T. on its own and not as part of the Common Market would be intolerable to all of us in this party.

The Prime Minister: On that we disagree, because there is a great body of opinion in Britain which believes that V.A.T. can be an asset to this country, particularly as it involves the abolition of purchase tax and selective employment tax and encourages exports. There is a


perfectly legitimate difference of opinion about this. What I hope to be able to do is to persuade the right hon. Gentleman, who when he opened negotiations accepted the common agricultural policy, as he will agree, that the arrangements which we have negotiated are satisfactory and that this will allow him to support our entry into Europe.

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he remembers the name of the very testy Leader of the Opposition who during the election, when questioned about this point on television, said, "V.A.T. is no part of our policy"?

The Prime Minister: We set out in the election manifesto—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—that we were not committed to V.A.T., and I said so on television. That was our position, and it was absolutely clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the right hon. Gentleman, if he would listen. This is precisely what I said on television, and it was precisely what was in the election manifesto. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the election manifesto he will see that we were not committed to V.A.T. When we came into Government we discussed with the Treasury the work which we had done and which N.E.D.C. had done on it, and then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech announced that he accepted V.A.T.

Mr. Harold Wilson: rose—

Sir T. Brinton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we please be informed what an argument about the merits of V.A.T. has to do with the Question?

Mr. Harold Wilson: First, does the Prime Minister deny using the words I have just attributed to him? Second, does he deny that the Conservative Central Office sacked one of its staff for saying in Hampstead at the beginning of the election that the reason that V.A.T. was out of the election manifesto was that it was unpopular?

The Prime Minister: The gentleman concerned was not sacked at all. [Interruption.] I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman works himself into such a state. We said in the election manifesto that we were examining the whole of indirect taxation, that this in-

cluded V.A.T., and that, if it were instituted, it would mean the abolition of S.E.T. and purchase tax. That is the position. Now we have examined it. We have published a Green Paper on it and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted it. It is now to be embodied in our tax reforms. What the right hon. Gentleman should address his mind to is the fact that, if we go into Europe, as we are proposing to Parliament, it will involve the V.A.T. and he must therefore give his decision on whether we should go into Europe on that basis.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order about some earlier questions. You in your discretion decided to foreclose—nobody complains about that—the questions about a referendum, but the Prime Minister had just extended his answer on the referendum on the basic question, which he and I had already agreed, by saying that, as the Press had approved his White Paper yesterday, my questions clearly fell. As the Prime Minister raised the question about the Press, I should have thought that it might have been in order for some of us to put a question or two about his answer, because his answer did not refer to a referendum.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is in a difficulty in these matters. The attempt to get on and to get as many Questions asked as possible occasionally leads the Chair into trouble. If an answer has gone rather beyond the question it is very difficult to stop it. I think however that Southend restored the balance of the referendum. We had 11 minutes on Southend.

Sir C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, we did not have 11 minutes on the question of Southend. That was questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition on V.A.T. and it, had nothing at all to do with Southend. It


seems extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition should raise questions on V.A.T. and then complain that his other questions are not answered, all on the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) about Southend. I am afraid that I have forgotten, and I think that many hon. Members will now have forgotten, whether the Prime Minister is to make an official visit to Southend.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we leave it there.

Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that last week I drew your attention to the rather ridiculous situation in which the Prime Minister is invited to make visits to all sorts of odd and sundry places. This afternoon we have had a very good illustration of what that device produced. It produced the Leader of the Opposition on his feet again when there was no real case for him.

Sir S. McAdden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Southend is not an "odd and sundry" place.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was content to leave the question of the siting of the office to my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). It was the Prime Minister who drew me into the question by his references to the V.A.T. and the Common Market.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 12TH JULY—Until seven o'clock, Private Members' Motions.

Afterwards, Second Reading of the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill and of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords.]

Remaining stages of the Land Registration and Land Charges Bill [Lords] and

of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill [Lords].

Orders on Anti-Dumping Duty, Electricity and Medicines.

TUESDAY, 13TH JULY—Supply (26th Allotted day): Debate on an Opposition Motion on the Economic Situation in Scotland.

Regulations on Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland).

WEDNESDAY, 14TH JULY—Supply (27th Allotted day): Remaining stages of the Education (Milk) Bill.

Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock.

THURSDAY, 15TH JULY—Supply (28th Allotted day): Until seven o'clock, debate on an Opposition Motion on the London Homeless. Afterwards, on an Opposition Motion on Sport and Youth Services

Remaining stages of the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill and of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords].

Motion on the Cinematograph Films Regulations.

FRIDAY, 16TH JULY—The House will be invited to approve the Anguilla Bill.

Afterwards, a debate on Privilege.

MONDAY, 19TH JULY—Supply (29th Allotted day): Debate on a subject to be announced.

Remaining stages of the Mineral Workings Bill [Lords].

The debate to take note of the While Paper on the The United Kingdom and the European Communities, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, is expected to be on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 21st–23rd July, and Monday, 26th July.

I intend to propose that the House should adjourn on Friday, 6th August. If, however—

Hon. Members: Oh !

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I may finish the announcement, which may help the House. If, however, the progress of business permits, it may be possible to recommend that the House should rise earlier.

Mr. Harold Wilson: First, may I express the thanks of, I think, the whole


House to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement about the Government's intentions regarding time for debating the Common Market issue. I indicated to the Prime Minister yesterday that I understood that there were generous proposals both for now and for the autumn, and I think that this will be for the convenience of the whole House. I am sure that the Chief Whip will agree that we ourselves have contributed time so that quite lengthy and, I hope, adequate time will be available.
The right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intentions for the adjournment of the House for the recess, about which I asked him some weeks ago, for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members. Is he aware that, if the House sits into August, it will be entirely because of the Government's obsession with getting the Industrial Relations Bill on to the Statute Book? Although at each stage of the Bill there has been totally inadequate time for debate and, when it was hoped—

Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman can sit on the 12th if he likes.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may speak for himself. At each stage of the debate, including the Report stage—we are coming now to consideration of Lords Amendments, which, I presume, is what the Leader of the House has in mind—there have been so many Government Amendments that it has not been possible for the House even to begin to catch up with matters not discussed at earlier stages. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has been a quite monstrous treatment of the House, despite his assurances when he announced the guillotine Motion, and that he must take full responsibility if the House sits into a week which will be as unpopular with hon. Members opposite as it will be with his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Common Market debate. I acknowledge at once that the Opposition have provided one of their days, through the usual arrangements, towards this procedure, and I am grateful to them for so doing. I hope also that, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the time for debate in October will be equally gener-

ous and considered to be so by the House.
As for continuing into the first week of August, while leaving aside some of his other strictures, perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was in 1966, I think, that his Government sat longer into August for a Prices and Incomes Bill which they produced very late in the Session. They went on much longer into August. If he has his strictures against me, I am, I think, entitled to retort not with a stricture but with a reminder for him. I think that that is perfectly fair.
As for taking responsibility for what I do, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and the House would admit that this is something which I have never been afraid to do, nor ever will be.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With reference to the adjournment for the Summer Recess, will my hon. Friend take it that, however personally disagreeable it may be to many of us to sit into August, most of us will be happy to do so if in that way we can make sure that this most necessary Bill is carried into law before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I must point out that there are other matters of business before us as well as that before the Summer Recess—in particular, generous time for the Common Market debate. One has to pay a certain price for that as well.

Mr. C. Pannell: I am obliged to the Leader of the House now that, after three years, we are coming round to consideration of the Report of the Select Committee of Privileges. But is he aware that this is a rather esoteric subject? Will he issue a note of explanation—I am not asking for a White Paper—to tell the House, and new Members in particular, what it really means?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this matter I very much respect. Motions are on the Order Paper. I am always available to seek to explain, to the best of my ability, this somewhat complicated subject. If I catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Friday, I shall make a speech on the subject. Whether, after I have made it, anyone will understand more about it


than he did at the start is not for me to say

Mr. Gardner: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the enormous demand for the White Paper on the Common Market demonstrates, as one would suppose, the immense interest in the subject in the country at large? In view of the historic importance of the debates which are to take place on the Common Market, will my right hon. Friend consider a live broadcast from the Chamber of those debates so that everyone outside the House may understand what is going on inside?

Mr. Whitelaw: I answered the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) last week by saying that the Services Committee would look into the question of a sound broadcast of the debate in October but that I did not think there would be time to consider it for the "take note" debate in July. The Services Committee considered the question this week. It came to the conclusion that the time would be too short for July. It has not taken a final decision on what to propose to the House for October. It will take such a decision next week and will then submit a proposal to the House one way or another as to what might be done about a sound broadcast in the autumn. It will then be entirely for the House to decide whether it wishes to accept or decline whatever advice the Services Committee puts forward.

Mr. Orme: Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite the timetable, going into August, that he has talked about in regard to discussing the Industrial Relations Bill, the Government this morning put down another 12 Amendments in the Lords, there are now over 300 Amendments debated and added, and 10 new Clauses added to this monstrous Bill? A matter of four or five days will be totally inadequate to discuss it. Will he understand that hon. Members on this side will insist on fighting for their democratic rights to discuss this Measure, if it takes us till September?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. These are all matters that can be discussed when the Bill comes back from another place.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Since the great debate on the Common Market has begun with such sweetness and light, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition agreeing that there should not be a referendum on the matter, will my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Leader of the House, see that there are talks now between the main political parties so that the decision shall be a real decision of the people through Parliament acting on a free vote?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on the subject.

Mrs. Castle: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), is the Leader of the House aware that because of the indecent haste with which the Government forced the Industrial Relations Bill through the House and the totally inadequate time allowed here to discuss it, it is being practically rewritten in another place, and that even in the Report stage in the House of Lords the Government keep adding important new chunks of policy? Therefore, we would strongly resist any attempt to repeat in the Commons the closure of debates through the guillotine that we suffered at an earlier stage. It would clearly be advisable to postpone the discussion until after the recess, when adequate time can be given. It is only because of a matter of petty prestige by the Government that they are forcing us to sit into August.

Mr. Whitelaw: I will consider what the right hon. Lady says, together with all the other points put to me, before putting down the Motion that I am entitled to put down under the original Motion, when the Bill is received back from another place. When I do so I shall take fully into account the number of Amendments to her own Transport Bill, and the amount of time allotted by the previous Government for Lords Amendments on that Bill, and the number of Amendments that came back from the Lords. The right hon. Lady, and the right hon. Gentleman who is enjoying it—[Interruption]—perhaps I should say that if the right hon. Gentleman is not enjoying it he had a funny way of showing that he was not doing so. The right hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman might like to look up the amount of time given to that.


I shall judge what I shall do, and then perhaps the House will compare my judgment with what was done then.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would throw some light on the arrangements for the second and more important of the Common Market debates. Can my right hon. Friend say when that debate is likely to be, and how long it will last?

Mr. Whitelaw: It will certainly be in the autumn. I expect that it will be in the second half of October, but I cannot be more precise.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee stage of the Education (Milk) Bill was completed only at five minutes past one today? The OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of the Committee will not be available to hon. Members until tomorrow. Does he think that to have the Report stage on Wednesday gives sufficient time for those hon. Members who were not on the Committee who I am sure will wish to table a host of Amendments? There seems to be totally inadequate time between the Committee and Report stages.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it is reasonable to note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Sir G. Nabarro: Whilst I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals to frame a timetable under his original arrangements to ensure the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill, may I ask him to bear in mind the utter futility of tramping through the Lobbies all night to deal with hundreds of Amendments? Will he therefore frame his Motion this time to make it perfectly certain that Members may vote and go off home at midnight?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly take into account all the points that have been put to me when framing the Motion.

Mr. William Hamilton: With regard to the debate on the Privileges Motion on Friday of next week, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on whether the Order No. 28 on the Order Paper today refers to all Select Committees, and that it will be immediately operative

as soon as the House approves it next Friday?

[That, except as otherwise ordered by this House,

(1) a Select Committee shall have power to admit strangers during the examination of Witnesses unless they otherwise order; and
(2) a Sub-Committee appointed by such a Select Committee shall have a like power except as that Committee otherwise order.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to proceed with general agreement in the House in that debate. There will be no question of my wishing to push any Motion through. If on Friday there was found to be opposition to any of those Motions, I would be ready to withdraw them and put them forward again. As to what the hon. Gentleman said about that Motion, I should like to see first what happens in our debates and whether it is approved next Friday.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more helpful about the debate in the autumn on the Common Market? There are Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations and Select Committees, and it would be helpful if, just as he gave the date when he hoped the House might adjourn, my right hon. Friend could give the date when he hopes that we might resume. I am not pressing for him to tell us today, but perhaps he can tell us next week when he expects the great debate to take place.

Mr. Whitelaw: I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that it will probably be in the second half of October. I will look into my hon. Friend's point, in consultation through the usual channels and with all the bodies connected with such delegations. I think that it would be in the general interests of the House that we should try to make sure that they do not have them at around that time.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the exasperation, indeed anger, felt by many of the Government's own employees in scientific research establishments, can the Leader of the House promise a statement about the position of people who feel that they


will be given something approaching a zero pay award?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman, who is more expert in these matters than I, will agree that the question is going to arbitration. However, I will call what he has said to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department, and if there is any information he can give the House he will make a statement.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ignore the advice given him on the Industrial Relations Bill by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who appears to want to establish a Reichstag rather than a British House of Commons? Will he take the much better advice given him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)? If he is not prepared to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and postpone the final debates on the Bill until after the recess, does he agree that we should continue right through the recess and discuss the whole matter in a proper, democratic way? Will he allow us to discuss the Bill properly and not constantly impose the guillotine? The Bill has not been discussed fully in the House, as it should have been.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I should make it clear, as I think I did in answer to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that the original Motion enabled me to put down another Motion subject to a two-hour debate and the decision of the House. As I put that down originally, of course I shall implement it when the Bill comes back from another place. In framing the Motion, I shall take into account all the considerations put to me today. Nothing I shall do then will be without precedents in the House. I shall see that I conform to what has been done in the past on many similar occasions.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information on another White Paper, not the one issued yesterday but one involving the little matter of rents for 7 million families? Is he aware that in local government

circles there is an understanding that the White Paper is to be issued on 15th July? Is that so? Whenever the announcement is made, may we have something more than a few questions and answers that we usually get on such a White Paper? Will there be a full debate on it, since such serious matters are involved?

Mr. Whitelaw: No decision on those matters has been taken, so I cannot confirm or deny what the hon. Gentleman has put to me. I can only say that I will certainly be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see what can be done about the method when the announcements are made.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When my right hon. Friend is considering with the Prime Minister the question of a vote on the Common Market debate in the autumn, would he take into account that, as we have three months to consult our constituents on this matter, it would make sense in that consultation if we had a free vote, and that we would probably have a bigger vote in support of the Common Market if we could obtain agreement on that with the opposite side of the House than we would if there was no agreement?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have already said that I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said, but I note what my hon. Friend says on the subject.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a little further thought to the point put by his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) about the timing of the autumn debate on the Common Market? Since last week, when the House had been given no information at all about the generous time available for the four-day debate, we have read all about it at the weekend. As the right hon. Gentleman has a clear date in his mind, would he consider making a business statement tomorrow? It would be of great value to the House to know when the October debate will take place. We should all understand if he has to change it for any reason, but would it not be for the convenience of the House if Members of Parliament could be told first?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, certainly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The only reason I was not announcing dates was the very point that he put to me, that some of the actual days might have to be changed—not the number of days but the day when the debate started. However, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I undertake, in the first instance, to see whether it is possible to give dates, which I hope we can keep to, next week.—[Interruption.] If it will help the House, I will give some very rough dates now, although I have to say that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take them with a certain amount of reserve, which he himself put on the original question. I would hope that the days for such a debate would come between 21st October and 28th October.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I cannot do it.

Mr. Whitelaw: Those are the sort of dates which I would expect.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. We shall all understand if it slips a day or two either way. I have just sent for my diary, too, which is bigger than the right hon. Gentleman's. Would the right hon. Gentleman not now put himself in a position to take the credit to which he is entitled by saying not merely what is the range in which the debate will take place, but how many days he is allocating. He has been very generous, and people should know that and not have to learn about it by reading it in the Press.

Mr. Whitelaw: The proposal was six days, which I thought reasonable. On the question of diaries, I have never believed that size was a very important matter.

Mrs. Renée Short: In view of the obvious bias in the "take note" White Paper and the obvious omission of any real discussion of the disadvantages that attach to acceptance of the terms contained therein, would the Leader of the House consider very carefully giving the House a longer opportunity to discuss the White Paper? Would he consider giving at least one extra day for the "take note" debate, so that we shall not be hurried, by Members on either side of the House, to get on as quickly as we can and to make five-minute speeches, because this will not be possible on such an important issue?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not wish to follow the hon. Lady's comments about the White Paper. Her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has very fairly said that the times allotted for the "take note" debate and for the debate in the autumn were generous timetables for the House. I think that they are. I am afraid that I could not offer more time for the "take note" debate. As for the number of Members who will be able to speak, I can only give the time honoured answer that that will depend on for how long those who are called decide to speak.

Mr. Lawson: Regarding the Mineral Workings Bill, which the Leader of the House proposes to bring on on Monday week after 10 o'clock, quite apart from the fact that the Government were not able to sustain the most important part of the Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister in charge gave to the Committee the very definite undertaking that, as he could not explain some of the important provisions of the Bill, he would do his utmost with the Leader of the House to ensure that the Bill came on sufficiently early in the day to permit a proper discussion of what could not be properly discussed in Committee? Would the right hon. Gentleman look again at the question of bringing the Bill on after 10 o'clock on a Monday night?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would have hoped that it was reasonable, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I will certainly look at the question again.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that it was on 16th June, 1970–not 1971–that the Prime Minister said that a Conservative Government would at a stroke reduce the rise in prices? It is only a year since he made that promise. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen my Motion No. 615, which gives about 50 or 60 of the basic staple food prices that have risen by as much 36 per cent.? As it would be the Government's wish to publicise those figures, may we have a debate on that Motion?

[That this House notes that on Tuesday, 29th June, 1971 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a written Parliamentary reply, columns 71 and 72, OFFICIAL REPORT, disclosed that between 16th June, 1970 and 18th May, 1971 the


following average percentage rises in food prices have taken place:


Item


Lamb: Home Killed


Loin (with bone)
9·1


Breast
15·2


Best end of neck
8·6


Shoulder (with bone)
8·7


Leg (with bone)
7·6


Lamb: Imported


Loin (with bone)
8·9


Breast
15·9


Best end of neck
8·6


Shoulder (with bone)
9·2


Leg (with bone)
7·5


Beef: Home Killed


Chuck
15·7


Sirloin (without bone)
16·1


Silverside (without bone)
16·3


Back ribs (with bone)
18·0


Fore ribs (with bone)
17·1


Brisket (with bone)
22·5


Rump steak
15·9


Beef: Imported Chilled


Chuck
20·8


Silverside (without bone)
19·2


Rump steak
14·1


Bread


White, 1¾ lb. wrapped and sliced loaf
5·6


White, 7¾ lb. unwrapped loaf
5·7


White, 14 oz. loaf
7·7


Brown, 14 oz. loaf
6·7


Butter


New Zealand
36·3


Danish
30·0


Eggs, per dozen


Large
17·6


Standard
22·3


Medium
29·6


Milk


Ordinary, per pint
8·7;

observes that these figures are at complete variance with the statement issued by the Prime Minister on 16th June, 1970 that a Conservative Government would, at a stroke, reduce the rise in prices; and, in the knowledge that the poor, disabled and sick, retirement pensioners, and those on welfare benefits spend most of their very limited incomes on food, demands an immediate increase

in all welfare benefits of at least 20 per cent. to offset the average rise of 10·4 per cent. in food prices to date and the prospective annual rise of more than 10 per cent. per annum.]

Mr. Whitelaw: Without wishing to follow the hon. Gentleman in his various points, I have noted his Motion. I had to look it up as I received so many questions on the Motions following it that I had to recollect which one it was. I have looked at this one and have noted it, but I cannot offer time for a debate.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that, in a Written Answer last week, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry announced a new policy of withdrawal of Government finance from films. Is he aware that to announce in a Written Answer a momentous change such as this, which could cripple the industry, is a gross breach of the procedures of this House? In view of this, may we have an urgent debate on the film industry and on this momentous change in the withdrawal of Government finance for British film production?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was not aware of the existence of the answer made by my hon. Friend, and of what the hon. Gentleman describes. I should like to look into it before accepting entirely what the hon. Gentleman ascribes to it. I cannot find time for a debate but I will look into the matter and I shall seek to question his hon. Friend and my hon. Friend in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. English: Regarding the debate on privileges, all the right hon. Gentleman's Motions on the Order Paper are specific and probably unexceptionable. But would he, therefore, put down a general Motion, such as a "take note" Motion on the original Report, as a peg on which we can hang other things than those specific in his Resolution?

Mr. Whitelaw: Such a debate took place in the last Parliament. I thought it right to give the House a chance to come to a decision on specific matters. I give all hon. Gentlemen the positive assurance that if, on Friday, I find specific objections to any of these, rather than pressing them to a vote and trying to win them on that basis, I would consider withdrawing them and seeing if we could


make progress. I hope, nevertheless, that some of the matters will command general acceptance in the House, and those I should like to get on to the Standing Orders of the House, as I believe the whole House would.

Mr. Douglas: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are clearly committed to a statement on shipbuilding industry credits before the Summer Recess. Because of the importance of these credits to this very important industry, would he indicate when that statement will be made?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept the importance of what has been said. If the hon. Gentleman says that the Government are committed to such a statement, clearly they are. I will look into the matter and, having checked it, I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about it.

Mr. Golding: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can expect the Prime Minister to be present during the first week of August in order to answer Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been fairly tolerant with questions, but they must be serious questions.

Mr. Fred Evans: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) was given a rather cavalier answer by the Leader of the House when he raised the matter of the interval between the conclusion of the Committee stage on the Education (Milk) Bill just after one o'clock today and the Report stage which is to be taken next Wednesday. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the need for some protection of back-bench Members. We do not have the facilities afforded to Ministers and shadow Ministers of all kinds. We have to do our own research work. We have to frame our own Amendments. Very often, that can be quite a technical exercise. The OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's last sitting will not be available until tomorrow. That imposes on back-bench Members on both sides an extremely difficult task. If this becomes the practice, we shall be in danger of removing some of the qualities that back-bench Members add to the House. The Leader of the House is extremely generous in his regard

for back-bench Members. I ask him to look at this position closely.

Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) felt that my original answer was in any way cavalier, I am very sorry. I did not mean to do that. Incidentally, perhaps I might welcome the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen back to the House.
I had some discussions about the timetable for this Bill. It was felt that on this occasion such an interval might be reasonable. I think that it is reasonable on this one occasion, but I assure hon. Members that it will not be regarded as a precedent for other occasions.

Mr. Lipton: Mr. Lipton rose—

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am a little embarrassed. If allowing business questions to continue adds to the appetite of hon. Members, and hon. Members who did not rise originally seek to catch my eye, the situation becomes rather difficult. I shall call the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and then the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), but no more.

Mr. Lipton: When the House has the "take note" debate on the White Paper on 21st July and succeeding days, will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of extending the rule by one hour or soon each day so as to allow more hon. Members to take part?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I am prepared to discuss that matter through the usual channels.

Mr. Burden: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for coming in so late. I had hoped that another hon. Member would raise the point. I understand that agricultural codes of practice are to be presented to the House on Wednesday of next week. If that is so, may I ask my right hon. Friend what time will be allowed to debate them?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it is 1½ hours. I will check that and make sure. If I am wrong, I shall inform my hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to give you notice of


it. With respect, you may care to rule upon it at a later date, when you have had an opportunity to consider it.
When there are important debates, Mr. Speaker is put in a very difficult position. We know that he always tries to be fair. When we come to debate the Common Market, Mr. Speaker will be in an even greater difficulty than usual. In the special circumstances, perhaps you will be willing to consider one or two suggestions.
The first is that the usual channels might consult you with a view to seeing whether they can assist you.
Secondly, I suggest that hon. Members on both sides who may wish to catch your eye during the debate might be allowed to write to you in advance suggesting whether they are in favour of, against or sitting on the fence about the White Paper. In that event, you might be able to consider working out a geographical, an industrial and a political, democratic debate which otherwise, without foreknowledge of hon. Members' views, would be impossible.
Perhaps, in the next week or so, you will consider the position.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The points that he raises have not been altogether absent from my mind. I have already been giving them some thought. I shall discuss these matters between now and the beginning of the debate.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

OPERATION OF SECTION 3(1) OF NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1966

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3(1) of the National Insurance Act 1966, as amended by section 1(1) of the National Insurance, &c. Act 1969, so far as the said section 3(1) operates for the purpose of any provision of the National Insurance Act 1965 relating to unemployment benefit or to a day or period of interruption of employment, no date shall be appointed for the coming into force of the said section 3(1) and any date already appointed shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The House has been in a humorous and good-tempered mood in the last quarter of an hour. We shall soon change all that.
It is not for me to inquire into the social arrangements entered in the diary of the Leader of the House. No doubt they are a sight more attractive than the proposals in this Bill. The Government seem to be hell-bent on emptying the pockets of the average working family. Even worse, they are concentrating their attack on the families of men who are sick and unemployed.
In Committee on 17th June the Secretary of State explained the strategy and the broad policy thinking behind the Bill. If I may loosely paraphrase what the right hon. Gentleman said in defence of the Bill, it was to the effect that he had to rob the sick to help the poor. Notwithstanding that, what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in the Bill and in the Statutory Instrument that we are trying to overturn by this Clause is to take from both the sick and the poor in order to help the wealthier people in the community who the Tories believe support them at General Elections with their votes and their money.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I challenge his paraphrase of what I said.

Mr. O'Malley: That surprises me, since I believe that any impartial observer reading what the right hon. Gentleman said on 17th June would come to the conclusion that, as usual, I was being completely fair to the right hon. Gentleman and the points of view expressed by his hon. Friends.
On 24th June last a Statutory Instrument was laid before the House the effect of which was to deprive a man or woman on short-time working of unemployment benefit from 1st January, 1972. Speaking for the Opposition, I made it clear that we were not opposed to this change of practice provided that certain conditions were satisfied. It has now become clear that these conditions are not satisfied and will not be. It is for that reason that we put forward this Clause.
Section 20 of the National Insurance Act, 1965, sets out the broad definition of days which can be counted for payment of unemployment benefit. Paragraph (c) of the first subsection explains:
the expression 'day of interruption of employment' means a day which is a day of unemployment or of incapacity for work
Paragraph (d) says:
Any two days of interruption of employment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a period of interruption of employment, and any two such periods not separated by a period of more than thirteen weeks shall be treated as one period of interruption of employment".
As a result of that legislation, unemployment benefit has been available, after a period of three waiting days, to short-time workers who satisfy the conditions laid down in that Section.
The National Insurance Act, 1966, provided that as from three years from the passing of the Act—from March, 1969–
where an employed contributor's employment has not been terminated but …suspended by the employer, a day shall not be treated …as a day of unemployment unless it is the seventh or a later day in a continuous period of … suspension",
excluding Sundays, holidays, or other prescribed days. The position generally became that a short-time worker after three waiting days could no longer get unemployment benefit in most circum-

stances. Where he was working a short working week it was merely a matter not of waiting six instead of three days before obtaining unemployment benefit, but of unemployment benefit no longer being available. These proposals were put forward by the Labour Government and postponed in the National Insurance Act, 1969, which replaced the provision for this section to come in three years after the date of the passing of the Bill by an appointed day.
It is necessary to explain briefly why the Labour Government acted as they did in 1969. Margaret Herbison, the then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, made it clear in the House on 16th February, 1966, at col. 1417, that the then Government were moving these proposals only under the view that payment for short-time working of this kind was properly the responsibility of the employer.
The reason for providing for three years and an appointed day in 1969 was to give time to secure schemes whereby employers would provide benefits for people on short-time working. No such agreements have been reached.
We had hoped from everything that the present Government said when in Opposition that, if they were to move a Statutory Instrument of the kind that they did move, they would take positive action to secure that responsibility for payments of this kind should be clearly laid upon the employer. It became clear, however, from the debate in Committee on 17th June that, although the Secretary of State declared himself "passionately" interested in fringe benefits, he was not prepared to accept an Amendment which had the effect of putting responsibility for alternative schemes on the employer. That is the first reason for coming back to this aspect of the National Insurance and Social Security system. It was on 17th June, after the passing of the Statutory Instrument on 24th May, that we realised there was no prospect of persuading the Government to do anything. They had ratted on what they said they would do when in Opposition; namely, to provide an alternative scheme, or schemes, whereby the responsibility rested with the employer rather than with the State.
Secondly, we have moved the new Clause because the T.U.C. objects


strongly. Certainly the T.U.C. was informed, but it was not consulted in any meaningful use of the word "consulted". The Government seem to have the idea that consultation equals telling somebody that they will do something after they have decided to do it, rather than asking the opinion of outside bodies first. We had an example of that only last week with the announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the steel industry. Therefore, the T.U.C. and the trade unions involved object strongly. Apparently the C.B.I. does not care.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have received a printed pamphlet or broadsheet from a number of trade unions in the North of England which take the understandable view that the proposal to withdraw unemployment benefit for workers on short time without the provision of decent alternative schemes is a matter which must be opposed.
Another important reason for bringing forward the new Clause is that, according to the latest figures which I have been able to obtain of 17th April, 1971, short-time working in manufacturing industry alone had reached the alarming level of 89,900. There are further limitations on those figures, because they are collected only from establishments which employ 11 or more workers.
A typical headline appeared in the Sheffield Star of Wednesday, 7th July, telling a story which is being told in local and regional newspapers all over the country as a result of the Government's policies. The newspaper stated:
Mexborough area faces jobs crisis. The G.E.C. plant at Swinton, the Mexborough area's biggest factory, today banned overtime and the management warned their 3,000 workers of possible short-time working…. Councillor Bob Haigh, chairman of the local employment committee, today warned that the situation had reached such serious proportions that the whole economy of the Mexborough area was in danger of collapsing.
It is against that kind of background that we bring forward the new Clause.
It is now clear that there is no possibility of alternatives in the short term between July, 1971, and January, 1972, when the Government propose to stop

unemployment benefit for men on short-time working. The Government refuse to attempt to do it by legislation. They certainly will not get comprehensive cover without legislation.
A number of trade unionists take the view that where they have achieved guaranteed working weeks in some industries, the value of such agreements is very much reduced by the fact that some employers sack people whom they certainly would not otherwise have sacked. It is an open question whether the Government's proposals to withdraw unemployment benefit for short-time workers would save any or very much money. The coming into operation of these proposals on 1st January, 1972, could result in many people losing jobs which otherwise they would not have lost.
We suggest that the Statutory Instrument which went through this House on 24th May should be annulled and that the proposals to withdraw unemployment benefit for men on short-time working who satisfy the conditions of the National Insurance Act, 1965, should be annulled because there is not the cover that there ought to be and life is difficult for many people at a time of high unemployment, raging inflation and a high degree of short-time working. If we allow this situation and these proposals to come into operation on 1st January, 1972, many ordinary working men and women will be affected. The Government are refusing to carry out the concomitant policies which are essential for any such proposals.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The House should first take note of the fact that on a most important issue there are only two hon. Members opposite, including the Minister. The benches on this side of the House have a greater much greater proportion of Members. That clearly indicates, as was shown equally in Committee, the difference in attitude to social security and benefits for working people. In Committee hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches were totally indifferent to all the arguments that were put forward. They made it clear that they were there for only one purpose, and that was to vote down the Amendments put forward by my hon. Friends.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is making a tactical error in drawing attention to numbers. He will remember that during the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill his benches were empty, except for a representative of the Front Bench.

Mr. Heffer: That may well have been true for a certain stage, and those who were not in the House were severely criticised. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will equally criticise all those of his hon. Friends who are absent from this important debate.
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), because late at night on 24th May an Order went through the House which gave the date of commencement of Section 3(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1966, as 1st January, 1972, and what we are trying to do by the Clause is to reverse that decision and say that it will not come into effect on that date.
During the 1939–45 War quite often submarines got through and caused a great deal of damage. I regard the Order as being similar to one of those submarines. If it goes through, it will cause a great deal of damage and harm to ordinary working people, particularly those who have short-time working as a normal part of their working process. There is still time to turn that submarine back, and it can be done by the Clause being accepted.
The Order will affect thousands of workers. The number of workers who have short-time working as part of their normal industrial experience fluctuates all the time. According to figures issued by the Department of Employment, in mid-December, 1970, the number on short time was 63,000. In mid-January, 1971–this is very interesting—the figure went down to 39,000, but today we have heard from my hon. Friend that it is up to 89,000. What must be remembered is that those figures are incomplete, because they do not include the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries, nor do they includes firms with fewer than 11 employees.
The industries most affected by short-time working are the furniture, clothing, textile—particularly in my part of the world, the North-West—motor car and

ship-repairing industries. I have personal experience of working short time on many occasions in the ship-repairing industry, and the problem still has not been solved. It is true, too, that from time to time certain sections of the engineering industry are affected by short-time working.

Mr. Dan Jones: And shoe-making.

Mr. Heffer: I do not have the details relating to boot and shoe operatives, but I understand that that is true. I am giving the main industries affected by short-time working.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, the 1966 Act, which was brought in by the Labour Government, excluded the payment of wage-related benefits to those who were on short-time working, but the date for the commencement of the non-application of flat-rate benefit was held up for three years. After discussions with the T.U.C. and other interested bodies it was agreed that the operative date should be postponed, and the House may be interested to know that the T.U.C. is deeply concerned and extremely angry that this proposal is going through.
The Labour Government thought that a period of three years would enable them to get from employers, in consultation with the trade unions, an agreement that there would be full payment, or a guaranteed payment, to workers while they were on short-time working. We know that about 10 million workers are covered by such guaranteed arrangements, but that is fewer than half the working population. It is interesting to note that in the motor car industry arrangements are being made to cover some of the higher-paid sections of workers, but the lower-paid sections have not yet been protected, and it is the lower-paid workers who will be hit hardest by the Order.
It is very important that low-paid workers should, as part of their normal working life, be able to receive not only their two or three days' employment, but also their two days' unemployment benefit. It is no crime of theirs if they find themselves on short time. They do not ask to be out of work for two or three days a week every two or three weeks. They do not say that they are delighted


with the situation. They would much prefer to be in full-time employment but, because of the nature of their jobs, that cannot be so. They will find themselves in a situation in which, through no fault of their own, their benefits are cut off. It is an absolute scadal.
I understand that the Government will save £3 million. I give them a bit of advice. They should take £3 million off the surtax payers. They should take it off some of their friends, who would be able to make up for it, and pay workers the benefits which, up to now, they have received as of right.
The T.U.C.'s view on the matter is very clear. In its 1966 report it said:
Following this announcement"—
that was the announcement by my Government—
the General Council met both the Minister of National Insurance and the Prime Minister and strongly opposed the proposal. They argued that if unemployment benefit were abolished for short periods of suspension and it was left to voluntary negotiations, many workers suspended through no fault of their own would receive neither benefits nor wages. Such a change was contrary to the fundamental principles of the unemployment scheme and would be completely unacceptable.
That was the T.U.C.'s view in 1966, and that is its view in 1971. It has not altered its view. It told my Government that it was not happy about what was being done, and there is this difference between the situation then and what we face now. My Government, after consultation, and having recognised that employers were not prepared to enter into agreements in every sector of industry to provide a guaranteed week, said that they would put down a date but would leave it to the Secretary of State to decide when the provision should come into force.
But what does the right hon. Gentleman do? He does not find out—if he has done, then his action is all the more to his discredit—whether such agreement can be reached throughout every sector. He does not say, "We now have agreement through every sector for a guaranteed week and I can therefore apply this provision." One of the first things he did on taking office was to apply this recommendation under the Act, and I regard it as a scandal. I hope that the House will repudiate him by accepting

the new Clause. Indeed, I hope that the Government will accept it. If they do, we can stop this discussion at once. But I am afraid that they are unlikely to accept it in view of the flinty-hearted attitude they have so far adopted on other aspects of the Bill. In the interests of common decency and of all the workers involved, the Government should accept the new Clause.

Mr. Stanley Orme: New Clause 1 takes us into the world of industrial relations and activity about which many people do not appear to have great knowledge. It deals with the question of unemployment pay and the problems faced by workers who, through no fault of their own, are laid off temporarily by their employer. In a period of full employment, such as that which we had in 1966, this matter may not seem so important because people might then say, "This is an old-fashioned system. We should tidy it up." All sorts of proposals are made to change the system in times of full employment. We are, indeed, often told in times of full employment that the problems that many of us worry about, such as uncertainty, short-time working and unemployment, have vanished and that we are moving into a different industrial society. But those of us who have spent our lives in industry know that conditions tend to ebb and flow. Yet the Government are introducing this provision to save £3 million at a time of rising unemployment and of short-time working. They are not saving this money off people who can afford it. They are not taking it away from people who are well paid or to whom it does not really matter. They are saving it off people faced with unemployment and short-time working.
I remember a situation like this in industry in the 1950s—again under a Tory Government—when there was severe unemployment in the North-West and in other parts of the country. The factory where I worked had to go on short-time working. The trade unions tried to maintain work for all the workers involved. The employer himself did not want to lose his valuable work force, particularly his skilled workers. We therefore went on to three days working plus the two days which we could draw in benefit. We were thus able to get a weekly wage. This was not equivalent to the average


weekly wage, because piece-work earnings were down and there was no overtime. Our earnings were greatly reduced. But at least we were not unemployed. At least we were able to take home a living wage.
That is the sort of situation which many people in industry face. The motor car industry often faces it. Certainly the cotton workers do—and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) will want to say something in more detail about the cotton trade and the problems it faces. Many workers undergo a situation of temporary reductions in the working week, sometimes lasting for months or even years. They try to maintain their employment by reduced hours. In these circumstances, they face the need to claim benefit.
4.45 p.m.
One of the points we have tried to press home on the Government is that we believe that the benefits are a right for workers who fall on difficult times. They are not a charity. They are a benefit which the workers themselves have contributed to. There are, of course, agreements in parts of industry on a guaranteed week. The engineering industry has a guaranteed week, but it is only 30 hours so it does not cover the full working week. The motor car industry also has a 30-hour guaranteed week. Therefore, the State benefits supplement the low pay which workers get in these circumstances and it does allow the trade unions and the employers to maintain employment.
The circular sent out by the Northern Counties Textile Trades Federation and other organisations points out that the Government's proposal will bring poverty and great problems to workers in some towns in North-East Lancashire. Unhappily, it will spread even beyond the towns of North-East Lancashire and Merseyside. It is now coming to the area I represent. Unemployment in the greater Manchester area in the last 10 months has doubled from 2·4 per cent. to just under 5 per cent. In the small factories in my constituency and in the greater Manchester area generally, there is now a situation of redundancy, short-time working and reduction of overtime. The Order went through the House, as Vic Feather would say, on its stockinged

feet. My hon. Friends are trying to redress the balance with new Clause 1.
It would, indeed, be a revelation if new Clause 1 were accepted by the Government. Practically every Clause in the Bill takes something away from the benefits of working people and new Clause 1 would redress the balance. At the moment, the system allows workers to maintain at least reduced employment and both employers and trade unions struggle to keep it going. But the Government's proposal means that more workers may be sacked. That means they will need unemployment benefit for the whole week, whereas at present the system tends to encourage firms to keep the men on and try to get through the bad time in the hope that things will improve. So the Minister will be adding to the unemployment which exists at the moment and will thereby increase the Government's expenditure. Over all, he will not save money by this proposal because more Government expenditure will be needed in unemployment benefit. In fact, he is creating more hardship. We have a case that the Minister has to answer. This is a central issue affecting thousands of industrial workers, and we urge the Government to accept the Clause.

Mr. Dan Jones: I, too, appeal to the Minister to look at the Clause with some sympathy. I want to speak about two industries which will be vitally affected if the Clause is not accepted—the textile and the boot and shoe industries, both of which undergo a great deal of short-time working.
The Secretary of State should have some respect for the consistent efforts of trade union officials to negotiate a guaranteed working week. If it had been possible to do so, the position now would not be nearly so acute. For about 10 years the workers in these industries have appealed in vain for a guaranteed working week. From time to time, the Secretary of State has shown compassion.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham): When?

Mr. Jones: For disabled people recently, and it is idle to pretend otherwise. I hope that he will regard these workers as suffering from a form of disability while not been physically disabled. Time after time they have petitioned


their union leaders to negotiate a guaranteed working week in line with the facility which millions enjoy, but in vain.
I know from personal experience that over a period of years people in the textile and boot and shoe industries have been told that much of what is wrong with the industries is the fact that we have to import from developing countries. There is more than a grain of truth in that, although I have yet to understand how Portugal could be described as a developing country; I suppose that it is embraced by the E.F.T.A. agreement.
At the same time, the point must be clearly made that we are asking our friends in those industries to adopt a broad and considerate attitude about those imports and yet we are to add an imposition upon them when they experience lean times. It is no exaggeration to say that they will have to go through a period on a line as near poverty as makes little difference. In these industries now—and I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is paying rapt attention—without a full working week and with the rising cost of living, it is already hard to make do.
In difficult periods, these people will have to work a part of a week without unemployment benefit to subsidise them, and their condition will be such that my words, to me at any rate and I hope to the Secretary of State, will contain a disturbing grain of truth—as near the poverty line as matters very little. It may well be that, instead of hanging on to his labour force, as he normally would, an employer will say that they will have to be dismissed, so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, the unemployment figures will rise.
It seems hard from a Minister who has shown a measure of compassion for disabled people, and in passing I congratulate him on that. The difference in attitude is so great that I completely fail to understand it. However, I may be wrong and at the end of this short debate the right hon. Gentleman may say that he will accept the new Clause. I hope so.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: It is not surprising that the greatest opposi-

tion to the implementation of the six-day suspension rule has come from the textile unions, particularly the textile unions of Lancashire, because there is no doubt that the workers concerned will be hard hit if the Government go through with this proposal. Anyone who lives or works in Lancashire has only to open any local paper to read the same dismal, depressing story—more and more redundancies, more and more short-time working, more and more closures.
In the textile industry, and particularly in the footwear industry, consisting of many small firms trying to make ends meet, short-time working has become not just a regrettable rarity, but the natural way of life. It is monstrous that people who work in an industry for low wages—and no one will claim that those working in the Lancashire textile industry are exactly over-paid; they never have been and certainly are not now—and who are now working a short-time week, week in and week out, through no fault of their own, should be faced with this proposal. It is almost unbelievable that, without proper consultation and without assuring themselves that alternative arrangements were made by employers to compensate workers for any loss of earnings when working a short-time week, the Government should be willy-nilly pressing on with the implementation of the six-day suspension rule. That is what the Opposition object to.
It is no good the Secretary of State saying, as he may, that authority was given by the 1966 Act to enable a Secretary of State in a subsequent year to operate the six-day suspension rule by Statutory Instrument.

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend will be aware that Margaret Herbison, then Minister of Pensions, made it absolutely clear at the time that if such proposals were to be implemented, they should be implemented only if the employer took over fully the obligations previously undertaken by the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. Davidson: That was the point I was about to make and I am glad that my hon. Friend, the shadow Minister, has made it. It was not a Labour Government which introduced this provision, but the present Government, and they cannot lean back on the Labour Government


for some sort of protection from the criticism which they are now rightly getting.
My hon. Friend said that the total saving, and I presume this is the Government figure, is something like £3 million. That is a paltry sum. That we should bandy about a figure like that as a justification for inflicting hardship on people who are grossly underpaid and who work very hard is disgraceful. This is at a time when the Government are proudly announcing some sort of massive saving on S.E.T. This saving has certainly not benefited any of my constituents. I do not know who has benefited, but it is certainly not the people in North-East Lancashire.
5.0 p.m.
I feel, therefore, that the Government have a case to answer and that they must justify the introduction of the six-day suspension rule at this time. There is rising unemployment, the worst unemployment figures ever in North-East Lancashire. It is monstrous. The Minister, it is true, has shown himself on many occasions to be a warm and humane person. I do not mean that in a patronising sense, but I find it incredible that he should press ahead with this proposal.

The Clause does not try to do something that is administratively impossible. All that it seeks to do is to prevent the operation of the six-day suspension rule. I should have thought that our case had been overwhelmingly made out and I hope that the Minister will find himself able to accept this very well-drafted Clause.

Mr. Alex Eadie: If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to argue the proposition on the basis that there will be a saving of £3 million he will be on very marshy ground indeed. This is certainly the wrong time to make this proposal. There has been discussion about unemployment in Lancashire and other areas in England. I represent a part of the country where unemployment is something with which we have had to live for some considerable time. If I were to stop being parochial for a moment I could point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is almost as certain as night follows day that this winter there will be 1 million unemployed.

In Scotland at present there are over 120,000 unemployed. That is an absolute disgrace. It may be that if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to listen to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends we will not only have to deal with unemployment but also underemployment.
What are the arguments in favour of this proposition? Is it because the Government want to try to do something to the trade union movement? Is it being pressed here as an argument against the whole proposition of work sharing? Is it said that it is better and cleaner that men and women should be made unemployed because it will be administratively expedient?

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend in full flight. He is always very good in full flight. Is he aware that in the so-called Code of Industrial Practice which has just been issued by the Government it is suggested that short-time working is a good thing? One half does not know what the other half is doing.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend tempts me. The whole of the country looks on the Industrial Relations Bill as a joke. It was thought when it was introduced by the Secretary of State for Employment that there would be a great deal of political mileage in it. Nobody speaks about political mileage now. It has sunk without trace. The Government will be trying to press it through before we go into recess, not because it will have any impact—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. No doubt we will spend a lot of time in pressing it through before long, but we must not try now.

Mr. Eadie: This is analagous to my proposition. I was talking about work sharing. The Government are discouraging the trade union movement from taking part in work-sharing schemes. The unions want to stop people being unemployed, because unemployment means a loss of dignity. It is relevant to mention the Industrial Relations Bill here, because that is an attempt to discipline the trade union movement.
The Government have made a fateful error. There is no political mileage in that. They will try to drive it through


to save their faces. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be persisting in making people unemployed. He must answer that charge. Does he think it more dignified for a person to be underemployed rather than unemployed? He talks of a saving of £3 million, but he would inflict great financial hardship on people. My hon. Friends and I are entitled to expose the attitude of this Government by voting against them.

Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that hon. Gentlemen who have disposed of a paltry £3 million would not be less vociferous if it were a larger saving. They are surely not asking for a larger sum of money to be saved in this way if they feel so strongly about the damage that the £3 million savings might inflict.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Of course we would not change our minds if the amount of money was a great deal more because it would represent more people out of work and more people on short time. At present there are 800,000 people out of work, with 89,000 on short-time working.

Sir K. Joseph: Precisely. Despite the strong feelings that hon. Members have sincerely shown, it is a fact that six weeks ago when the commencement Order was introduced by affirmative Resolution the Opposition did not vote.

Mr. Heffer: We know.

Sir K. Joseph: It needs to be repeated. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that if at a later stage it was plain that the Government were not introducing parallel changes, by which he meant an obligation on industry to provide a guaranteed week, the Opposition might return to the subject and would want to vote. On that occasion there was no indication from the Government benches that any obligation would be placed on industry but the Opposition decided not to vote. I make no more than that of it. It is not an argument of substance. It should, however, be borne in mind.

Mr. Dan Jones: I take it that what the Minister is saying is that he wants us to behave similarly on this occasion. That, in my opinion, would be trying to make two wrongs equal one right.

Sir K. Joseph: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that, in view of the strong feeling shown today, it was very odd that the Opposition did not take the opportunity—

Mr. Heffer: We missed it; that is the truth of the matter.

Sir K. Joseph: The submarine got through the Opposition's defences.
We are dealing with an unknown number of people who are affected by the proposed change. As hon. Members for Lancashire constituencies are saying, there is a relatively small, although absolutely important, number of people who fairly regularly receive unemployment benefit for short-term suspensions and a much larger number of people, often in reasonably well-paid work, who receive it infrequently. Part of the engineering in-industry is not yet covered by guaranteed weeks. Part of other industries in which people are not notably ill paid are not covered by guaranteed weeks.

Mr. Dan Jones: Most of them in Lancashire.

Sir K. Joseph: We should not deceive ourselves by thinking that the 10 million people who are covered by guaranteed weeks are under half, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, of the working population. In fact, nearly all the people affected by suspension are men. Most of the 10 million covered by the guaranteed week are men. Therefore, substantially more than half the men in manufacturing industry are already covered by guaranteed weeks.
That does not diminish the fact that quite a large number of men in manufacturing industry are not covered by guaranteed weeks.

Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of the agreements are only for a partial guaranteed week in the sense that they may guarantee only a 30-hour week? This makes a very important difference. The Code of Industrial Practice provides:
As far as is consistent with operational efficiency and the success of the undertaking, management should seek to avoid redundancies by such means as"—
and then it lists various means among which is
(d) short-time working to cover temporary fluctuations in manpower needs ".


Does not that mean that this is an absolute piece of hypocrisy on the part of the Government because, on the one hand, they say that, and, on the other hand, they undermine the whole basis of it?

Sir K. Joseph: What my right hon. Friend must have had in mind is the firm which comes occasionally upon a situation where short-time working can allow a normally continuous operation to survive a short period of difficulty. What cannot be for the health of the country on anything but the shortest view is to have sectors of industry which survive permanently by way of help from the taxpayers through this mechanism.

Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair. He wants his cake and to eat it. Does he really think—and here I am arguing for the employer—that any employer wants short-time working? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that with short-time working the employer still has full-time overheads to pay?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not imagine that any employer or employee wants to take part in consistent short-time working. I am not an economics Minister, but there are implications for the method of management of a firm which finds itself relying regularly upon the National Insurance Fund contributor to subsidise his workers. My job on behalf of the public is to find money from the taxpayer and from the contributor for the highest social priorities. I have made no secret—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite will allow me to have my say. I have given way a great deal.

Mr. Dan Jones: We are very interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

5.15 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Walton was generous to me in one respect in Committee where we had many bouts of disagreement. He said that at least I stated my reasons honestly. I state my reason honestly again: I am constantly preoccupied with high priorities of social need which have not been met, and it is my job to obtain money—either by getting fresh money or by switching money—to satisfy the greatest

needs. The hon. Member for Rotherham thoroughly misrepresented what I said in Committee. He sought to paraphrase my remarks by saying that I was robbing the sick to help the poor. That is not what I said. I said that I was searching for areas where what was a high priority had ceased to be as high a priority as some needs which are not being met. I stand by that.
It is open to hon. Members to quarrel with my selection—

Mr. Dan Jones: We do.

Sir K. Joseph: —as to what are lower priority areas. But I repeat that here is a sector of what was regarded as normal support by the National Insurance contributor—short-time working. Ten million workers—mostly male and mostly manufacturing workers—are covered by guaranteed weeks of more or less quality. The movement should continue. This is an area above all in which trade unions and employers should negotiate.
It seems to me proper that this money, which is going largely to people who are on suspension for short periods, often from reasonably well paid work, has a lower priority for public spending than the many areas covered by the National Insurance fund such as those to which the Government have diverted money this year, particularly the chronic sick and the very old.

Mr. Dan Jones: I apologise for intervening so frequently, but may I ask the Minister whether, prior to introducing this legislation, the Government made an appeal to employers who did not have guaranteed working weeks to introduce guaranteed weeks?

Sir K. Joseph: No. But I told the T.U.C. after the Government's decision had been announced, and I have expressed my willingness to declare publicly that the Government would welcome negotiations between workers and employers in those sectors where there is not a guaranteed week. I have said that I am not prepared to make it obligatory because I believe that the economics of each individual industry and firm and the pressure in each industry and firm provide a far better climate for it rather than that there should be a mandate from the Government.

Mr. Heffer: Obviously the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to introduce mandatory principles, but would he not agree that until such time as agreements operate throughout industry, and as he has the power under the 1969 Act to fix the date, he should say, "I will not go ahead on 1st January, 1972, but will wait until agreements have been reached by employers and trade unions on the question of the guaranteed week"?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not prepared to adopt that attitude. The House must recognise that unless it wishes National Insurance contributions to increase by another £3 million, which would be a perfectly logical alternative, within the National Insurance Fund—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman muttering about surtax. We are dealing with the National Insurance Fund. We can increase the National Insurance contribution, use the £3 million as it is being used now, or let it go, as the Government have provided for, into the pool for the chronic sick and the very old. Those are alternatives. It is for that reason, because we regard the priority for the chronic sick and the very old as a higher priority, that the Government do not accept this new Clause.

Mr. Alec Jones: But surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the money to provide the additional benefit being made available for the chronic sick and other categories could have come by increasing Exchequer contribution to the National Insurance Fund?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, certainly, and that means increasing taxation.

Mr. James Sillars: Surtaxation.

Sir K. Joseph: I think I ought to explain again, as I explained to the Committee, that the Government fought the General Election on the thesis of tax relief, that marginal cuts in taxation on earned income and at all levels of income—all levels of income—would be healthy for the future prosperity of this country. It is part of the spectrum of benefits which range from benefit for the very old, the very poor, the sick, the chronic sick, the disabled, right through to the taxpayer, including the surtax payer, as part of the programme on which we went

to the electors, as being healthy to the whole people of this country.
Now I come to a last point which hon. Gentlemen ought to take into account. The Labour Government brought in the commencement Order with the intention at the time of carrying it through. They changed their mind. They were entitled to change their mind. The result of the Government's changing their mind was to give industry the impression that the commencement Order, or, rather, the ending of the suspension arrangements about unemployment, would never be brought into effect, and as a result of the indecision of the last Government, delayed the introduction of a guaranteed payment, in a number of firms and industries, which we, but for their indecision, guaranteed payments on a better or worse scale would have been introduced. I believe that by carrying out our intention to make this commencement Order effective on 1st January next year we shall help to accelerate the spread of guaranteed agreements. It is because of that, and for all the other reasons—

Mr. Orme: I think the right hon. Gentleman is missing the central point there. We are all in favour of guaranteed weeks so that if firms run into difficult times and can pay, so much the better, but there are many firms which are not in a position, or not over a long period in a position, to pay this money, and in the short-time working of three days or two days, the supplement of the benefit helps both the employees and the employers to keep afloat in the period of difficulty, particularly in the cotton industry. What the Secretary of State is doing will mean creating more unemployed, not fewer, and the savings will get very little indeed.

Sir K. Joseph: It may well be that there are firms which are not, at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman says, in a position to support a guaranteed week. That does not mean that those firms, if they have suspension arrangements, alter them to dismiss men. It may well mean that they will have to look to their methods of management, and if it does, it may thoroughly improve the lot of those people who work for them. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to reject this Clause.

Mr. Sillars: We cannot allow the Secretary of State to get away with that


argument. He has argued this afternoon that we are faced with a choice of priorities within the total extent of the National Insurance Fund as it is defined at present. That is not strictly the case because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) pointed out, there is a degree of Government subvention to the fund, and there is nothing in principle or practice to prevent the Government from putting further contributions into the fund above what they do at present.
Then the right hon. Gentleman attempts to extract himself from that difficulty by claiming that the electorate gave the Government a mandate for cutting income tax, and saying that that means that he cannot increase the contributions from the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund. I feel bound to point out to him that while the Conservative Party certainly had in its election manifesto that it would decrease taxation it did not spell that out in detail by saying that there would be a differential decrease, one decrease for ordinary workers and an entirely different one for surtax payers. It was a blanket undertaking that somehow taxation would be cut.

Mr. John Nott: But surely the Exchequer contribution is exactly the same now as during the time the Labour Party was in Government? It has not been changed.

Mr. Sillars: That is right. Our argument is that if the Government want to save £3 million it should be changed now.

Mr. Nott: That was not the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).

Mr. Heffer: He has gone.

Mr. O'Malley: Perhaps the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) is not as aware as he ought to be, and as my hon. Friend is, that the Exchequer contribution in percentage terms has varied considerably over a number of years—during the 'fifties and 'sixties. It is not always been 1 per cent.

Mr. Sillars: I want to bring the Secretary of State's attention to the Conservative Party manifesto dealing with unemployment and sickness and injury

benefit. The Government claim a mandate to cut taxation, so I think that we are in duty bound to point out to them that on page 22 the manifesto says:
Retirement pensions, sickness, unemployment, widowhood and industrial injuries benefits will continue to be paid as of right, and without means tests, in return for National Insurance contributions.
They have a sort of mandate for that, too. This Measure does not accord with that so-called mandate which the Conservatives sought by what they said on page 22. There is no indication there to the general public that this Bill would be included in any social security measures which would be implemented by the Conservative Government.
I refer now to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), when he said my hon. Friend suggested we should give industry time to adjust to the necessity for a guaranteed week, and the Secretary of State said, no, that abolishing it for the moment would do more for workers who might face unemployment. The Conservative Party supported the Labour Government's formula on equal pay, and the workers, it was said, had to have time to adjust to a massive change on the wages front; they had to be forewarned. If the Conservative Party and the Secretary of State are genuine in saying that they want people to have the guaranteed week and to have it as soon as possible. I suggest that, instead of this legislation, the formula proposed to come in 1975 would have been one which the ordinary workers would have welcomed, and which would have been welcomed on both sides of industry, because trade unions and managements would have been forwarned and the Secretary of State would have had additional ammunition for his argument. The fact is that if this Bill goes through unamended it is the working people of this country who will suffer, and not managements.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: I am sorry that the Secretary of State thought I was misrepresenting his policy when I said it was one of robbing the sick to help the poor. I thought that that was reasonably accurate judging from what he said in an earlier debate. I would only say that I would not want to misrepresent him.
My hon. Friends described in some detail the industries in their areas which were badly affected by the proposals which which we seek to annul. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) described graphically the situation in Scotland, and several of my hon. Friends representing Lancashire constituencies described the plight of the textile industry and the boot and shoe industry.
The Secretary of State said that the introduction of this new practice would result in pressure for a guaranteed week in industries which did not have one, but my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) pointed out that in the textile and boot and shoe industries the unions have been trying to negotiate a guaranteed working week for many years. All that the right hon. Gentleman could say to this was that it was not the job of his Department or the Government to subsidise workers. He is not subsidising anybody. The workers are paying for these benefits by contributing to the National Insurance Scheme.

Sir K. Joseph: If I did say "workers" I was wrong. I thought I said, and I should have said, "firms". Firms who are not accepting the case for a guaranteed week are perhaps doing so because their workers can get subsidies. The answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is that these workers are not unemployed, they are not looking for a job; they are in employment, they have an employer but they are temporarily suspended.

Mr. O'Malley: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. They are unemployed within the terms of the National Insurance legislation, they have paid the contributions and they are entitled to the benefits as the scheme stands.

Mr. Dan Jones: The Minister has made the point that they are employed part-time and are not looking for work. That is totally wrong. If they had a chance of a full-time job they would leave their part-time work and go to it.

Mr. O'Malley: The National Insurance Scheme is not subsidising workers. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that his Department should not be "subsidising"

employers and if, as my hon. Friends have said, some of the textile industry employers would be in real difficulty if they had to do this, what is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting? Is it the laissez faire policy of the Government that those firms should close down and their employees be thrown out of work? The right hon. Gentleman referred to better management, and I agree that there is a general problem of the standard of management in this country. But the problems of the textile industry are not confined to management. The Lancashire textile industry has been facing serious problems in the last half-century as a result of world pressure.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that over half the men in manufacturing industries were covered by a guaranteed working week. So half of them are not covered by a guaranteed working week, on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission. Even where there are guaranteed working weeks, those schemes have certain limitations. Some are restricted to a 30-hour week.
The position is absolutely unchanged, as it was throughout the whole Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing quite blatantly that his job is to switch resources so as to help the higher paid and if, in doing so, he has to take something away from someone who is poorer, he is quite prepared to do it openly. He is also saying that he is not prepared to make an appeal to employers to introduce a guaranteed working week. He says that is nothing to do with him and that the employers and trade unions had better sort this out for themselves. The Government have made no attempt to make guaranteed working week schemes in industry obligatory, and that is why we have to come back to this subject.
We welcome the handful of hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House. They have said nothing about this, and no back-bench Members of the Committee showed the slightest interest—

Mr. David Mitchell: Shame.

Mr. O'Malley: It is a bit late in the day to come along and chunter. The hon. Gentleman could write his contributions


to the Committee on half of one side of a comic postcard. In view of the refusal of the Government to concede anything, or to follow the line which they said they would follow when they were in Opposition, I advise my hon. Friends, and hon. Gentlemen opposite if they have any

feelings of decency, to oppose the Government.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 256.

Division No. 415.
AYES
[5.37 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Albu, Austen
Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Marquand, David


Allen, Scholefield
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsden, F.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Ashley, Jack
Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Golding, John
Mendelson, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian


Barnes, Michael
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Beaney, Alan
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Booth, Albert
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn, Denis
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Clarke, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Rose, Paul B.


Delargy, H. J.
Latham, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lawson, George
Sandelson, Neville


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dormand, J. D.
Leonard, Dick
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Sillars, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mc Bride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackie, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)




Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wallace, George
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Tinn, James
Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tomney, Frank
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William



Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Astor, John
Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnis, John E.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marten, Neil


Balniel, Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molyneaux, James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper




Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bray, Ronald
Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Havers, Michael
Mudd, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bryan, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hicks, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Normanton, Tom


Burden, F. A.
Hilt, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holt, Miss Mary
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peel, John


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hunt, John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cockeram, Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Coombs, Derek
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cordle, John
Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Critchley, Jullan
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crowder, F. P.
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


Dixon, Piers
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Luce, R. N.
Soref, Harold


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain







Stainton, Keith
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Steel, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Tnew, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stokes, John
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wilkinson, John


Sutcliffe, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Waddington, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hn. George


Tebbit, Norman
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)



Temple, John M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT

5.45 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 32, at end insert:
(4) Any deduction specified in subsection (1) above shall not be made where the Supplementary Benefits Commission are satisfied that such deduction would result in undue hardship to the claimant's dependants or where there are other exceptional circumstances which satisfy the Supplementary Benefits Commission that any such deduction should not be made.

The Clause as it stands proposes a 40 per cent. reduction of supplementary benefit for industrial misconduct. We are discussing this Amendment against a background of high unemployment. As the level of unemployment fluctuates upwards and downwards, so roughly, does the number of cases where the National Insurance officer takes a decision that a person applying for unemployment benefit has been guilty of industrial misconduct. The present level of unemployment benefit is intolerable and is a direct result of the present Government's policies.

There is widespread feeling on the shop floor and in industry generally that the whole of the system of governing industrial misconduct and consequent reductions in supplementary benefit needs to be looked at afresh and in detail. A reduction of this kind involving a move from 75p to 40p, subject to the maximum of 40 per cent. of the single householder rate, involves dramatic cuts in the incomes of families affected. We feel it necessary for provision to be written into the Bill to avoid the real hardship and damage which could be perpetrated as a result of this very high figure of 40 per

cent., which for a married couple represents an increase, on the new supplementary benefit rates which come into operation in the autumn, from 75p to £2·32. We regard this as a disgracefully high figure.

A married couple will be entitled in the autumn to a scale figure of £9·45, and will suffer a deduction of £2·32, instead of 75p. This will mean that the scale rate for a married couple in the autumn, at a time of rampant inflation caused directly by Government policies, will be £7·13. That is what a family would be expected to live on. A single non-householder over 21 on the new scale rate would be entitled to £4·60. He would suffer a deduction not of 75p but of £1·84 and for the week he would be required to live on £2·76. We take the view in any case that the figure of 40 per cent. is far too high and in Committee we sought to reduce it substantially, but in any case we felt that whatever figure was set by the House should be a maximum figure.

We certainly do not condone in any way what hon. Gentlemen opposite desscribe as "scrounging". But we are anxious that innocent people should not get hurt as a result of the Government's savage proposals. We do not want to see a 40 per cent. reduction in all cases.

My information is that the officers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission seldom, if ever, modify the 75 per cent. qualification, and therefore, presumably, unless there is some changed instruction from this House, in virtually every case there will be a reduction—amounting to £2·32, for example, for a married couple. We think that this is too high, but also that this reduction should not be taken into account or made in all circumstances because of the difficulties which individual claimants and their families could have and because


of the nature of the complaint which has been made against them, which has led to the National Insurance officer making a decision that they have disqualified themselves from receiving unemployment benefit.

In Committee, we made it clear that the Commission should not automatically accept the same criteria in deciding whether there should be a disqualification, and how much, as the National Insurance officer. The Secretary of State said in Committee that he would consider writing into the Bill explicit powers for the Commission to meet exceptional need. However, he said that the Commission already had those powers under the 1966 Act.

The difficulty is that, so far as can be ascertained, the 75 per cent. deduction has rarely if ever been reduced as a result of the Commission using its discretion in this way. That is the first reason why one leg of this Amendment has been put down—because we want the Commission's officers to be in no doubt that there will be circumstances in which the full reduction should not be made.

I mentioned a number of specific problems in Committee and the Secretary of State promised to discuss them with the Commission. I mentioned the special needs of people who may be affected by industrial misconduct decisions of the National Insurance officer, as regards diet and the health of the claimant or of his wife and children. I wanted to know what would happen, for example, if the wife was in a late stage of pregnancy. The Secretary of State said that something could be done in those circumstances. At present, I am advised, nothing is done to cut the amount which is settled on for supplementary benefit as a result of a decision that there is industrial misconduct.

We argued that the criteria adopted by the National Insurance officer should not necessarily, in all circumstances, be the criteria adopted by the. Supplementary Benefits Commission, simply because, to give one example, of the mental and physical characteristics of some of the individuals who are disbarred from unemployment benefit because of charges of industrial misconduct.

When we argue that there should be different criteria, we are not asking for a new principle to be introduced which has never been followed in this country. I am advised that, in the late 1930s, the Unemployment Assistance Board made a 2s. reduction in payments where there was industrial misconduct, but only where it seemed justified. The Board took the decision itself and did so only where this would not cause serious hardship. In September, 1937, of 3,538 people who qualified for this reduction, 43 per cent. received full benefit—that is, the Board was not necessarily accepting the same criteria which led to the decision that there had been industrial misconduct. Nor should this be the case today.

We also tried in Committee to introduce the concept of "culpable" misconduct. The Secretary of State was quite right to discuss the real difficulties which could arise for the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the administration of the system if that concept were accepted. We put it forward to be debated. We did not suggest that it was the best solution, but we thought that the whole concept needed discussion and that that was the opportunity for that discussion.

But, for example, with single parent families, where a woman is trying to keep her children by going out to work rather than receive supplementary benefit, very real strains and difficulties can arise which the National Insurance officer is not allowed to take into account. Similarly, many workers who are disqualified for industrial misconduct and whom Members of Parliament see in their advice bureaux are people who are not very clever, who run foul of the system, who feel that they have done nothing wrong and feel aggrieved about the decisions taken against them. One feels that the Commission's officers should be able to take that kind of circumstance into account.

We should have liked other substantial Amendments to this Clause, but all have been turned down. This Amendment is modest enough, but it would in some circumstances mitigate the monstrous level of industrial disqualification which the Government now propose. Before any such proposals were put forward, they should have been referred to the Committee investigating abuse. There


should have been consultation. It is clear that there was no consultation or meaningful discussion with the Commission itself.

We want the Commission's officers to see whether there are exceptional circumstances, and we hope that they will interpret this subsection broadly and with the sympathy which one generally gets from the Commission. One hopes that the officers would satisfy themselves before making a disqualification of this magnitude that it would not involve the wives and the innocent children in hardship.

Unless these modest proposals are accepted, this is precisely what the Government will be doing. I am bound to say that, judging from the reception which we have had from the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State today and previously, there seems little possibility that appeals to their compassion in this respect will meet anything but a blank refusal to accept anything broader than their own proposals. I hope that the Government will look at this one, if they are looking at nothing else.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Skinner: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), except for his reference to people who fall foul of the system and are dismissed for alleged industrial misconduct being what he described as "by and large not very clever".
I agree that they may not be particularly brilliant intellectually, but they certainly have blood rather than water running through their veins. Many of these people fall foul of the system because they are prepared to stand up to the foremen or managers who operate tin-pot scab factories in which a system of organised trade unionism is neither known nor wanted.
This sort of thing does not happen in reputable industries. In the 21 years during which I was a trade union official in the mining industry I did not have to defend one person who had been sacked for industrial misconduct. The unions in this and similar industries ensure that this sort of thing does not arise and, in any event, the management would not take such action.
We are, therefore, talking about something that occurs by and large in scab factories. There is one of these near to

where I live, though not in my constituency. I do not exaggerate when I say that the average take-home pay there is £8 a week. There are long dole queues at the Claycross labour exchange and the area has a 14 per cent. male unemployment rate. The labour exchange regularly shunts people to this and similar factories where, despite the lack of organised trade unions, the men complain about the bad wages and conditions and refuse to work overtime on plain-time rates.
As a result, a paltry excuse is found to get rid of them, and alleged industrial misconduct is often such an excuse. The people who run these factories are not worried about losing their employees. There seem always to be long queues at the Claycross labour exchange, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides could tell of similar stories.
This part of the Bill shows Conservative bias against ordinary working-class people. More important, it shows the bias of the Government against industrial and manual workers. I have great pleasure in opposing this part and the rest of the Measure.
In Committee the Secretary of State quoted figures relating to people disqualified by insurance officers as a result of alleged industrial misconduct. I insist on using the word "alleged" in this context. He said that of the total of 600,000, only 12,000 had appealed, of whom only 2,400 were successful before the local appeals tribunal. A further 140 appealed to the Commissioners, the second line of appeal possible under the system, resulting in a total of 2,500 successful appeals. This means that employers are backed 99 times out of 100 in these cases, and this obviously adds to the difficulties of ordinary workers and particularly manual workers.
A considerable discussion took place in Committee about the refusal of unemployment pay to these people prior to their appeals being heard. Unfortunately, most of the discussion involved my hon. Friends because hon. Gentlemen opposite failed to speak during the 12 sittings of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that we would be creating a precedent if money were paid prior to appeals going before the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
There are, of course, many instances where money is paid prior to a final decision being taken, and this occurs both inside and outside the social security ambit. If a man sustains an injury and applies for disablement benefit he is first examined by two doctors of the local medical board. If he is not satisfied with the assessment he is given, be it a partial, provisional or final assessment, he can seek leave to be examined by a specialist at a medical appeals tribunal. While he is waiting for that to occur he receives the money.
He may have a 10 per cent. assessment spread over, say, six months. The hearing before the tribunal may not take place for three months following his appearance before the medical board, but nevertheless, he receives his money. The Minister cannot, therefore, sustain his argument that we would be setting a precedent by paying the money in this instance.
I shall have great pleasure in opposing this part of a squalid, class-conscious Bill which is designed to hit the working class. I trust that unless a really satisfactory reply is received from the Minister, my hon. Friends will take this matter to a Division.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I regret that I was neither a member of the Standing Committee which examined the Bill nor present on Second Reading. For the record, I was assisting in the Labour victory at the Glasgow municipal elections. Having read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, I have no difficulty in supporting the Amendment, which is eminently reasonable.
I am never convinced when Government spokesmen argue that the Labour Government tried to do something along similar lines to those which we are urging the Government to follow. I do not necessarily accept responsibility for everything done or attempted to be done in my name. On this occasion I do not believe that the Government have produced convincing arguments to show that they are abiding by the wishes of the Supplementary Benefits Commission or that there was even adequate consultation with the Commission.
Although 40 per cent. is a savage reduction, I am fair-minded enough to consider any evidence that is put to me. If a section of the community is frequently and deliberately trying to get round the regulations, let us have the evidence and consider the matter before passing legislation on the subject. In this instance the Government appear to be over-riding the discretion of the Commission. It is most unfortunate.
I can remember that the previous handbook of the Supplementary Benefits Commission received plaudits from hon. Members on both sides. It states in page 1:
An exclusively legal approach to a non-contributory benefit scheme can only lead to a narrower not a broader concept of the 'rights' of claimants….
It goes on:
The distinctive feature of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme is its discretionary element, those powers vested in the Commission which enable it to consider claims of individual circumstances.
There is obviously a wide discretion left to the Commission.

The Clause deals with someone who leaves his job voluntarily; but who in these days, particularly in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, would leave his job voluntarily, other than someone who might be described as being not too bright? I do not share the belief that everything done in the industrial field is a piece of vicious class warfare; there is also the individual element to be taken into account. But is it not the case that the individual about whom we are likely to be concerned is in some way a bit inadequate? Is he not the kind of person we are talking about?

Mr. Heffer: No, we are not talking about him at all.

Mr. Orme: There are not 600,000 idiots.

Mr. O'Malley: I think that some of my hon. Friends have misunderstood both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). We say that amongst those deemed by the National Insurance officer to be guilty of industrial misconduct, there is a cross-section—inevitably, because we are dealing with a cross-section of the community—of people who fall foul of the system because they are


not very clever. We ask that the Supplementary Benefits Commission should take that kind of circumstance into account.

Mr. Brown: I am not sure what some of my hon. Friends are objecting to or seeking to correct me about. I am not arguing about the inability of some people to manipulate the regulations—

Mr. Heffer: They are not doing that, either.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech. I am arguing against the blanket statutory provision which the Government are introducing. I say that the greatest injustice will be done to those genuinely inadequate people who for some reason or other leave their jobs. If that type of individual is not caught by this Clause as it stands, I shall be very surprised.
We are slightly more advanced in Scotland than is the rest of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] In terms of social work, we are. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may not know that the social work departments have the power to make cash payments, and I suspect that more and more such payments will be made by them to the kind of inadequate person of whom I am thinking.
I do not condemn anyone. I do not want to get involved in more fundamental issues. I object to the fact that the Government are removing a discretion from the Commission, once someone has been deemed by the National Insurance officer to have left his job voluntarily or to have been guilty of industrial misconduct. To that extent, this is a most retrograde Clause. I have not been told whom the Government are trying to catch, but they will certainly catch some innocent victims in the general process.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I want, first, to try to restore peace between my hon. Friends, though it seems to me that we are not so much quarrelling as emphasising different aspects of the same problem. As has been said, amongst those alleged to be guilty of industrial misconduct are some of the inadequates, but there are also those, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, who are forced into an unfortu-

nate position by the stupid and aggressive acts of employers. Therefore, we have two distinct groups suffering equally from this type of accusation.
The Standing Committee on the Bill was one that I was sorry to miss. People do not often volunteer for Committees, but I should very much have liked to be a member of this one. I notice that in Committee the Government supporters were noticeable by their almost complete silence or by their absence. The Secretary of State told the Committee:
What we are all interested in is ensuring that this deduction, which is not dramatic but which is enough to inconvenience a household …
and that is a considerable understatement, because the amount of inconvenience will depend on the family's income:
… is not imposed before a proper investigation as to the absence of fault."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F, 11th May, 1971; c. 46.]
The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the rather laborious appeal machinery, and I suppose that most of us would agree with his choice of language; namely, the desirability of ensuring that there was no absence of fault.

The Amendment seeks to say that if we are interested in ensuring that the appeals system should be able to carry out proper investigation into absence of fault, we should be equally interested in ensuring that a deduction is not imposed before a similar investigation has been made into the extent of the hardship involved. The hardship which the proposal involves is as important as the question of fault itself. We have ideal machinery for dealing with this matter, which is why I consider the Amendment to be so desirable. We have the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which, because of the experience and expertise it has amassed over the years, is well able to ascertain the factor of hardship.

There is bound to be some hardship involved in these measures, otherwise there would be no point in introducing them. The Secretary of State used not the word "hardship" but the word "inconvenience", but one man's meat is another man's poison and Tory inconvenience is certainly a Labour hardship in my part of the country.


The right hon. Gentleman described the present deduction of 75 p as derisory. Members of my own Government have used similar language, but, as some of us keep on saying, we are not always responsible for the actions even of our brethren. If the Secretary of State describes 75p as derisory, what word would he use to describe his proposal of £2.05? This is an increase in reduction of 173⅓ per cent. It will undoubtedly cause hardship to the lower-paid and to families.

The Amendment seeks to mitigate the hardship. It is nonsense to suggest that benefits can be paid to a wife and children and that somehow they can be reduced only for the husband and father and that his family will not suffer. My experience in my locality and elsewhere teaches me that if a father's income is reduced the income of the whole family is effectively reduced and hardship is inevitably caused.

The Supplementary Benefits Commission was set up specifically to alleviate hardship. The Government would be wise to accept the Amendment and give the Commission the right to maintain the level of present benefits where the proposed reduction would cause undoubted hardship.

Mr. Heffer: On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
Clause 1(2) deals with a person disqualified for up to six weeks from unemployment benefit because he has committed industrial misconduct, left his job voluntarily, or refused suitable work without good cause."—OFFICIAL REPORT 26th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 50.]
The right hon. Gentleman later suggested that the proposal was that the deduction, which is at present 75p, should be increased to 40 per cent. of the single householder adult rate.
There are three points to be examined. First, there is the question of industrial misconduct. There has never been a clear definition of industrial misconduct. It is a matter of the employer's judgment whether a worker has committed industrial misconduct. There can be and always will be an argument about the real nature of industrial misconduct. Examples have already been given of conduct which an employer might well consider to be industrial misconduct but which would

not be so considered by the workers concerned.
A worker in an unorganised factory, say, who constantly asked for better conditions, who argued that the canteen arrangements, if any, were not good enough and that the toilet conditions were not good enough, and who contended that the factory was not sufficiently clean, was too dangerous or was not safe could well be considered by his employer to be a nuisance; an excuse could be found and he could be sacked for industrial misconduct. Anyone who thinks that such a thing could not happen does not know much about industry.
Second, on the question of a worker leaving his job voluntarily, we perhaps reacted too harshly to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) was making. I take the point that people with inadequate attitudes would come into this category: they could voluntarily leave their employment because of inadequacy.
However, many workers who are not inadequate, who are in control of all their senses, and who understand exactly what they are doing have to put up with bad management or a very bad foreman. A bad foreman can so harass a workman that the workman can stand it no longer and will reach the stage at which he says, "I know I shall lose my unemployment benefit, but I cannot stand this." He therefore leaves his job. He is then immediately faced with suspension of benefit for six weeks and, now, a reduction in benefits of up to 40 per cent. of the single householder rate. The point which we on this side stress is that the reduction bites not only on the worker but on his wife and children.
The third category is refusing suitable work without good cause. I have refused what could be considered to be suitable employment. When I worked in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry, one yard in Liverpool that we did our best to stay away from was Cammell Laird. This was because at that establishment at 7.30 a.m. the doors banged and a worker who was not inside the gates at that time lost not a quarter-hour's pay, not a half-hour's pay, but a full morning's pay.
For those workers who got through before the gates clanged at 7.30 a.m.


there was no official coffee or tea break. Someone stood at the entrance to the toilet to decide how long a man should stay in the toilet. Many of us who lived 10 miles away on the other side of the river did not want to take a job where we could get no expenses for travelling there. We tried to avoid going there as long as we could.
It could be argued that that was "suitable employment". Of course it was suitable employment, but I did not think it was suitable employment if there was an alternative. However, if on being directed to it we refused it our benefit was suspended for six weeks.
An examination of the three grounds on which the philosophy is based shows that there is no basis for this in industrial life. The case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) is reinforced by what was said in Commttee by the Secretary of State:
What I would like to do is to undertake that we shall consider writing in a reference to the Supplementary Benefits Commission's undoubted powers to meet exceptional need. I will undertake to give consideration to that."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F, 11th May, 1971; c. 79.]
Here we are on Report and nothing is being written in. My hon. Friend now seeks to write in a safeguard. If the Government wish to keep their word, all they have to do is to accept this proposal. I do not know whether the Secretary of State will do it. If he acts as he has acted on the Bill up to now, he will not accept this reasonable proposal.
Unfortunately, our Amendments were not accepted. We did not want this provision to go through. Our Amendment seeking to reduce the figure to 20 per cent. has not been called. We hope that the proposal contained in this very reasonable Amendment will be accepted by the House.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Orme: I support the case presented by my hon. Friends. While my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) was speaking, one or two of us interjected comments with reference to so-called inadequate people who visit Members of Parliament, but the case which he and others have deployed is that we are not dealing here with identical groups of people. We are

dealing with individuals. Under the Governments proposals, however, all will suffer by the refusal of unemployment benefit and subsequent reduction of supplementary benefit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Provan rightly pointed out, a man does not lightly leave a job in Scotland, particularly in the Glasgow area, because of the great shortage of work there. But this is not a situation which he or any of us want. Until recently in the area which I represent people had a choice of where they worked, and rightly so. If a man wanted to change his job, he had a chance to look for other work. Now, unfortunately, we are moving towards the situation in Scotland, and there is a substantial increase of unemployment.
We are discussing this question in the context of the industrial jungle, a situation in which manual workers and, perhaps, some white-collar workers will be caught because of allegations of industrial misconduct. In some instances, there may be genuine industrial misconduct, but in the vast majority of cases that judgment could be contested. Nevertheless, it will automatically operate when a man goes for his unemployment pay and he finds himself disqualified for six weeks. When he then goes to the social security department, the present 75p stop on benefit will be increased to £2.5, at a stroke. The worker is to be penalised financially at a time when he is without work, and, probably, he has a great feeling of grievance.
As we explained in Committee, a skilled worker may refuse a job to which he is sent because it is not work in his trade. In that event, he is immediately disqualified from benefit. During periods of full employment we often heard about the difference between a buyers market and a seller's market. My goodness, the Government are really tilting the balance in favour of the employer now with these proposals.
Our modest Amendment would do no more than give some discretion and bring an element of democracy into this business. It would give the unemployed person, already perhaps under a sense of injustice, the feeling that there was some justice to be found somewhere.
The flow to the employment exchange and the supplementary benefit offices is becoming almost a flood now because of the economic policies pursued by the present Government. More and more people are being pushed into this bewildering situation. I gave an example in Committee when I spoke of one man who had come to my bureau for help and advice. He had worked for over 20 years at his job and had never known unemployment throughout all his working life. Then, being unemployed, he was sent to a job but refused it. He was refused benefit. The Minister said that he had his redundancy payment and would not be badly off. No one is arguing about that. We are concerned about the principle involved.
That man who came to my bureau was absolutely astounded at what had been done to him. "I am not one of the scroungers", he said, but I had to tell him that he was now classed as such by people who glibly talk about scroungers without knowing the facts.
When I have explained to people in that sort of situation that the proposal now is to increase the disqualification to £2·5, they have been absolutely astonished. Yet this is what the Government are doing, in a period of unemployment and industrial stagnation which is their fault and not the fault of the people concerned. By positive Government policy they are creating unemployment, and at the same time they are tightening the screw on benefits and disqulifications.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, the Minister gave a pledge in Committee that he would re-examine the matter, but he has not fulfilled that pledge on Report. If he does not meet us on this modest Amendment, we shall have no alternative but to vote for it in a Division.

Mr. J. T. Price: I have not intervened previously on this matter, neither did I have the privilege of serving on the Committee, but I have listened with interest to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends, particularly on the question of industrial misconduct. I approach this matter not from a theoretical point of view but with a lifetime's knowledge of situations in which so-called industrial misconduct is committed. These are often questions of subjective

judgment by people who are not without a vested interest in applying such labels to a man's conduct at work.
I should be the last to defend the kind of gross misconduct constituted by a serious breach of contract of service by any man, whether a union man or a non-union man. I still have some respect for the sanctity of contract. For example, a man who involves himself in a violent physical fight on the floor of a factory where there is dangerous machinery is a menace not only to his employer but to his workmates. The pages of the law books are full of cases in which claims for damages have been brought by injured workmen as a result of fighting in factories where machinery exposes men to hazard. I do not make much comment about a man getting his cards for that kind of conduct.
The same goes for a gross breach of some reasonable order given to a man by his employer or foreman. I should not object, either, if a man wilfully and defiantly refused to carry out a reasonable request falling within the sphere of his employment.
Let me take the case of a 100 per cent.-organised trade union workshop, where the union is powerful and has competent stewards and officials who will handle the men's interests if there is a challenge. In such a workshop it might be dangerous for the employers to give a man his cards on a paltry excuse, such as wearing a tie the colour of which was not to their liking. So where there is an employee who may be a bit of a thorn in the flesh of his employer, and it is known that the shop would react quickly to an arbitrary dismissal, very often a process of niggling sets in. The man is constantly frustrated. He is asked to do things which may infringe his dignity, such as a menial task that he should not be expected to do, or to carry out an unreasonable order. Those are not flights of fancy but matters of which people in workshops have had experience. Such a man is marked down not to be dismissed but to be so chivvied and harassed in the conduct of his daily employment that if he has any dignity he will walk out one day. He would rightly complain if in that situation he found himself deprived of his benefits for six weeks. He would feel that he had been victimised by the system and that


the National Insurance Act had been operated in favour of the employer and not in his own interests.
A very dangerous atmosphere is creeping into all debates on this matter. We have just had a debate on another aspect, the six waiting days for short-time working, which is linked with this matter in some ways. I was amazed when I heard the Secretary of State, whose reputation for humanity is considerable and who is looked upon as a humane person, talking about using the taxpayer's money to subsidise such people. I do not wish to be unfair to him, but I hope that that kind of language will stop. We are talking about an insurance scheme, a contract of insurance between the contributor, the employer and the State under which benefits are offered in respect of certain contributions. It is wrong to regard a man who is unemployed as qualifying for a benefit at the will and pleasure of the State.

Sir K. Joseph: But the people of whom we were speaking are not unemployed; they are in employment but temporarily suspended.

Mr. Price: I am dealing at present not with the suspension Clause but with industrial misconduct. Perhaps I have frustrated my own argument by trying to put the parallel argument as logically as I can. Whether a man is temporarily suspended from employment because of the economic state of the industry or is sacked for industrial misconduct, he loses a benefit to which he is entitled, other things being equal, under the contract that he became a party to when he joined the scheme and became a contributor. I refuse to believe that there should be any difference in principle between the kind of contract a man would enter into with a commercial insurance company and an insurance contract between himself, as a contributor, and the State, which holds the kitty.
Is the Secretary of State aware that if a man leaves his job of his own accord, perhaps because of pressure upon him by the employer who wants to see the back of him, he suffers not only the penalty of six weeks' loss of benefit but another penalty which may be more serious in the long run? Not only does

he pass on that loss of benefit to his family, by the withdrawal of a portion of the benefit under the National Insurance Scheme and the complete loss of his own benefit, but he loses the credit for the stamps on his card for six weeks. Later on when he claims pension benefit he may not qualify with sufficient stamps because he has not paid the arrears of contributions.
These are not trivial matters. I put them forward as calmly and objectively as I can in the hope that even at this stage we can prevail upon the Minister and his advisers. Our opposition springs from our experience. We know far more of the working class from whom we spring than do some Conservative hon. Members who have obtained their knowledge from another sphere.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): There is no dispute that some cut in supplementary benefit is necessary where a man is disqualified because of industrial misconduct and so on. That must be common ground, because we all know that the 75p deduction now made, which has been accepted by successive Governments, is regarded in the nature of the case as acceptable and reasonable in principle. At present it is made under discretionary powers which the Supplementary Benefits Commission exercises. However it may be made, it has been accepted for some time, which obviously leads the House to conclude that in principle some reduction must be made if the purposes of the National Insurance legislation and the associated Ministry of Social Security legislation is not to be rendered entirely nugatory. The dispute is not really about the principle of whether there should be a reduction in the circumstances we are considering, but about the extent of that deduction.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman develops that argument on the wrong premise, may I repeat the gravamen of our charge, which is that in dealing with industrial misconduct what counts is the definition of industrial misconduct? The debate has been directing the attention of the Government to the great doubt which exists whether many such alleged cases are genuine industrial misconduct.

Mr. Alison: That does not alter the principle that I am trying to establish as common ground, that under the National Insurance legislation there is provision, through three stages of scrutiny and appeal, to consider whether the bite of the relevant Section of the National Insurance Act, Section 22, should apply. There is machinery for determining all the very undesirable, aggravating and anxious circumstances to which hon. Members on both sides have referred, such as difficult employers and the special circumstances of the individual. There is provision under the governing Section, which uses the phrase "without just cause" in defining the circumstances. There is provision in principle for determining whether a disqualification should apply. I do not think that hon. Members opposite, certainly on the Front Bench, would dispute that it has been and remains common ground that in principle a deduction, whatever the figure may have to be, is accepted. The whole argument turns on whether or not a certain figure or certain percentage is the right one to take.

Mr. O'Malley: This is not what the Amendment is about.

Mr. Alison: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be patient. I may be verbose and perhaps unclear, but I always give him a chance by cross-examination to make his point.
The issue here is not the principle but the degree of deduction which should be made. I would remind the House of some of the options which have been suggested. First, there is the prevailing discretionary figure which the Supplementary Benefits Commission exercises and which in contemporary terms amounts to 75p. Most of us here remember Mr. David Ennals. As Minister of State, he thought that 75p was a derisory figure. He had this to say when speaking of the disqualified person:
If he were to receive the same amount as has been denied to him because he has been disqualified, the whole process of disqualification would be absolute nonsense, and disqualifying a man only to the extent of 15s. a week is, frankly, not very far from being nonsense."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F. 7th May, 1970; c. 1284.1
The sum of 75p is one of the figures which have been considered. It was dismissed by Mr. Ennals as derisory or

nonsensical. Some people have suggested a figure of 20 per cent. In practice, 20 per cent. of the single householder's rate would raise Mr. Ennals' figure by 7p, so that we would move up from 75p to 82p. That is roughly what the 20 per cent. figure would involve. I think that that was the figure which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) thought was right as a reasonable percentage.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman must not be selective like this. We have heard these comments of his before and have knocked them down in Committee. It would not go from 75p to 82p at 20 per cent. of the maximum single householder's rate. It would be £1·16 as opposed to the £2·32 proposed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman has tried this before.

Mr. Alison: I would reply to that rather acid comment that some of us had heard before a number of the arguments put by the hon. Gentleman today. I do not complain, however. Good arguments should always be repeated. There is no harm in that. But we have another option on what is the right figure to take. The hon. Member for Walton was in favour of 20 per cent. He put down an Amendment to that effect similar to one which he put down in Committee. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) stuck his neck out further. He was in favour of putting it up further. In Committee he said:
I should have been inclined to a figure of 25 per cent.…".—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committe F, 11th May, 1971; c. 83.]
Some people thought that 20 per cent. was the right figure. He thought that a 25 per cent. reduction should be chosen.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman is brilliant at dragging what might be described as "blue herrings" across a trial. What has this to do with the Amendment, which simply suggests that the Commission should in certain conditions have discretion in order to avoid undue hardship?

Mr. Alison: I shall work towards my conclusion. I shall not allow myself to be deprived of the opportunity to deploy the full range of options, because discretionary powers should be based on some sort of valuation of the consensus. If a discretionary power is to be exercised,


it should be against the background of some agreed common view of what the rights of that discretion are. If we were to give discretionary power to the Commission against a whole range of possible options of what we feel reasonable, we would leave the Commission in an impossible situation. The options suggested have included 20 per cent., the 75p which Mr. Ennals dismissed as derisory, the 25 per cent. of the hon. Member for Rotherham and the Labour Government's view that it should be 33⅓ per cent. of the single householder rate. Many options have been canvassed as to the right percentage but the general agreement exists that there should be some percentage cut.
I come now to the problem which would be presented to the Commission in deciding a case against the background of discretion offered by Parliament on where a fair and true mean should lie. Our proposition is that the figure of 40 per cent. should be written into the Bill, and that figure is not far different from the sort of figure which the Labour Government were considering. We feel it right not only to select the figure of 40 per cent. as fair and reasonable in contemporary conditions but to write it into the Bill because we think that this should be a decision by Parliament. We believe that the guiding principle should be determined here. We believe that the invidious business of assessing the extent of the deduction against the background of all these various suggestions as to what the ideal figure should be should not be given to the Commission but should clearly be borne by Parliament.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has got something slightly wrong when he suggests that there is general approval that there should be a reduction. Some hon. Members on this side have long argued that a man should not be presumed guilty before he is actually found guilty. But this is precisely what has happened over a long period. Many of us argued that it should be the other way round. It is true that proposals were put forward by the last Government but they ran into considerable trouble with hon. Members on this side because they were not prepared to agree to the sort of figures which were being bandied about. I want it put on record that the argument he is putting forward is not generally accepted.

Mr. Alison: That is an important commercial on behalf of the tail which wags the Labour Party dog. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the conclusion that has emerged from the legislative practice of the Labour Government is as I have described it—that it is fair and reasonable to make a deduction. The whole argument has been about the scale of the deduction. We believe that instead of being roughly 33 per cent., which the Labour Government were considering, it should be 40 per cent. But the main point is that we think it right that Parliament should decide in the Bill the main guidelines which should govern the Commission.
There is anxiety on both sides that this disqualification and the penalties associated with it should not impinge unduly upon those with hardship and family problems. But the safeguard against hardship is preserved by the Bill and by the governing Act to which it relates. There need be no doubt in anyone's mind. By the crucial parts of Schedule 2,4(1)(a) of the Ministry of Social Security Act, the Commission has power, where there are exceptional circumstances, to increase an award made to people who might otherwise have money withdrawn from them That power stands. It is perfectly possible to protect against hardship, as it was always intended to protect against it.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: Labour Members are aware of the provisions of paragraph 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Schedule to the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966. But that part of the Schedule is not being applied in industrial misconduct disqualification cases. What are the Government going to do about that?

Mr. Alison: I am glad at this stage to have confirmation from the hon. Gentleman that everybody realises that this part of that Act applies, and will continue to apply, in principle to be available to mitigate circumstances of hardship. The fact that the Commission has rarely used this discretion—this is the point the hon. Gentleman is making—is explained by the extremely small amount, 75p, which has been at stake in the issue. There is no reason to think that the Commission will not use its discretion more widely when the deduction is up to as much as 40 per cent.
I here state categorically on behalf of my right hon. Friend, and it will be on the record, that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be asked to review its rules to meet the new situation arising out of the Bill in which the level of penalty is to rise to this explicit 40 per cent.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my hon. Friend make it absolutely plain that we do not want any of this nonsense in the Opposition Amendment? There is one thing which would be absolutely wrong. In their Amendment, the Opposition have made plain their view—my hon. Friend has not yet referred to the one thing that matters—that where there are other incidental circumstances which satisfy the Commission, no deduction should be made. It is not a task—I hope that my hon. Friend will make this plain—of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to consider whether there has been industrial misconduct. The mischief in the Oppositon's Amendment is making the wretched Commission become in some way involved in considering whether there has been industrial misconduct. That is not the Commission's task. I have been here just to see that we do not give in to that suggestion. I hope that we shall not widen the scope of the Commission's discretion in that way.

Mr. Alison: I can reassure my hon. Friend in this context. The determination within which the rules will apply is made under another Statute and is in the discretion of the insurance officers, the National Insurance Appeals Tribunals and, ultimately, the Commissioners. There need be no fears about that. However, there might be some genuinely difficult problems of a delicate and extremely unsatisfactory kind for the Commission to consider if the Amendment were accepted.
Against the background of the range of uncertainty which there has been about

the correct percentage for the deduction, the Government believe that we should spell it out in the Bill, and we believe that the percentage is fair and reasonable. It should be recognised that hardship may still be mitigated by the escape Clause, if I may put it like that, in the original Ministry of Social Security Act. We will specifically ask the Commission to review its rules and to exercise its discretion under that provision of the 1966 Act in the light of the new figure which will be written into the Bill.

On the basis of that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Rother-ham will agree that the Amendment need not be pressed.

Mr. O'Malley: The Minister has made that speech before, and I have no doubt that he will make it again. If he makes it again, hon. Members who give live performances in the House will want to negotiate a needle time agreement.
The points that the hon. Gentleman made fell into two categories: first, those not relevant to the Amendment anyway; secondly, those knocked down in Committee anyway. He has given the House an assurance that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be asked to review its rules, and we are grateful for that, grateful to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary. I like to spread my kindness, of which I do not have much for hon. Members opposite on this Bill, evenly and fairly.
Nevertheless, we feel that this subject is of such importance that it should be written into the Bill. In view of the history of the matter, we feel that there can be no guarantee that the system will be operated as we should want to operate it, and I therefore advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes, 248.

Division No. 416.]
AYES
[7.6 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe
Bishop, E. S.


Albu, Austen
Atkinson, Norman
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnes, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Allen, Scholefield
Barnett, Joel
Booth, Albert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Beaney, Alan
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)


Ashley, Jack
Bidwell, Sydney
Bradley, Tom




Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, J T. (Westhoughton)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Probert, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cronin, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Richard, Ivor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Davis, T. A. G. (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David
Rose, Paul B.


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hon. William (Kilmarnock)


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, George
Sandelson, Neville


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Sillars, James


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skinner, Dennis




Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Eadle, Alex
McBride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hon. Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Rt. Hn George (Cardiff, W)


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.
Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Torney, Tom


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Golding, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, David


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Weitzman, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hamilton, William, (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael



Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian



Hooson, Emlyn
Oram, Bert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Horam, John
Orme, Stanley
Mr. William Hamling and


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Mr James A. Dunn.


Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Body, Richard
Buck, Antony


Astor, John
Boscawen, Robert
Bullus, Sir Eric


Atkins, Humphrey
Bowden, Andrew
Burden, F. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Braine, Bernard
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bray, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark


Balniel, Lord
Brewis, John
Channon, Paul


Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chapman, Sydney


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert







Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cooper, A. E.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Curran, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Royle, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj. -Gen. James
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dixon, Piers
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, Wiliam (Clapham)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Simeons, Charles


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eden, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Soref, Harold


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McMaster, Stanley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Tilney, John


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Green, Alan
Moate, Roger
Trew, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gurden, Harold
Montos, Mrs. Connie
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Wall, Patrick


Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airev
Walters, Dennis


Hayhoe, Barney
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Holt, Miss Mary
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilkinson, John


Hordern, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peel, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John



Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr Tim Fortescue.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 3, after 'earnings', insert 'exceeding £1.00'.
By this Amendment we are attempting to modify subsection (3), which says, in effect, that the families of strikers, and,

indeed, the families of many non-strikers, who have been out of work because of a trade dispute at their place of employment shall not receive supplementary benefit as a matter of right when they return to work before the workers receive their first wage packet.
This matter is connected with Clause 2 in that although these families will have established a need and will be living below supplementary benefit levels, and alone will be singled out among other people who qualify for supplementary benefit as not being entitled in this period, which may be up to two weeks and often is two weeks, to supplementary benefit as a matter of right, they will be encouraged—this is the Government's intention—to seek an advance or sub from their employers, which, in our view, is equivalent to telling people who qualify for supplementary benefit that they should live on borrowed money or go to the moneylender or pawnbroker.
Subsection (3) provides that if workers receive subs from their employers, these will be taken into account in reckoning their supplementary benefits. We are attempting to modify this by a very modest Amendment which proposes that the first £1 of any such advance should be disregarded. That is in line with the practices carried on under the Supplementary Benefits Scheme. I wish to give two examples.
First, in the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, which still provides most of the rules for the scheme, paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 deals with circumstances in which someone may be receiving earnings, and provides that
The weekly earnings of any person shall be taken to be his net weekly earnings reduced …
by £1 in some circumstances and by £2 in others. We are taking the more moderate alternative in order to apply a parallel with this situation.
The other point is that subsection (4) of the Bill deals with a disregard of £1. That is the subsection that deals with people who are out of work because of a trade dispute, who are disqualified from the main benefit, and who are receiving either strike pay or P.A.Y.E. refunds. It alters the old situation by which there was a disregard of £4·35p and brings in, instead, a disregard of £1. On the Government's own criteria we are suggesting that having taken a disregard of £1 in another part of the Clause, and having regard to the fact that that disregard is part of the normal rule of applying for supplementary benefits, it should apply to advances on earnings made by the employer during this period.
We see no reason why it should not be applied to this subsection. We hope that the Secretary of State will consider the point before the Bill goes to another place, in which case we will gladly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But we see no reason why the Government should not accede to this principle.

Sir K. Joseph: I must repeat an argument that will be familiar to hon. Members who were in Committee. Until a few years ago—I note the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who knows what I am going to say—when a strike took place the men and women involved, after returning to work, looked to the employer for income during the first week or two until the normal pay machinery gave them their weekly earnings. Only in the last few years have increasing numbers of workers discovered that there was an alternative way of securing an income during the first two weeks after returning to work.
They came to prefer to draw supplementary benefit—which was untaxed and did not have to be repaid—rather than continue to claim subs which had to be repaid to the employer and came out of taxed income.
The strategy of the Government is to make supplementary benefit broadly unavailable except in conditions of hardship so as to restore the original practice—the normal habit until recently—of leaving employees to look to their employers for an advance of earnings during those first two weeks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] I know that hon. Members are not denying that that is the strategy of the Government—because it is. To accept the Amendment would make it marginally more advantageous still to look to the Supplementary Benefits Commission—that is, the taxpayer—for some help in the post-dispute period. That is why I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. If he does, I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Orme: I know that we are going through the arguments, in a much reduced form, that we had in Standing Committee. We have listened to the Minister, and must again put on record the fact that we do not accept his argument that it is natural for workers returning from an industrial dispute to try to resolve


their financial difficulties by going to their employers for subs.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) knows that historically—over the past 20 years—persons who have been on strike and then have gone back have had to borrow money somehow and somewhere, until they have been paid out the following week. What is the hon. Member's argument?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member may know a lot about some things, especially the law, but he knows nothing about this. We explained this in detail in Committee. It is not the normal thing in industry. It has been introduced in the building industry, but it has been vigorously opposed by the trade unions. It is not a practice that any of us has endorsed. It is a form of cap-in-hand help.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Mr. Rees-Davies indicated dissent.

Mr. Orme: Yes, it is. The money has to be paid back. Apparently the employee has to go to his employer and say, "I have been on strike. I am in great difficulties. Will you now assist me, because I cannot make ends meet."

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is misrepresenting what would happen on the ground. The representatives of the workers—normally the trade unions-would discuss with the employers the arrangements for helping to supplement workers' incomes until their first pay day. It is not done on an individual basis; it is done on a representative basis. There is no cap-in-hand aspect to it.

Mr. Orme: I am in complete disagreement with the Minister. An issue of pride is involved. As a representative in industry, I have resisted the move for subs, because we believe that it is wrong, and involves indignity. The Minister's removal of this supplementary benefit payment is penalising the families of the strikers and also workers who may have been thrown out of work because of an industrial dispute although they were not themselves involved. We have dealt with this point elsewhere in the Bill. The Minister knows that it is an injustice, but for political reasons he is not prepared to recommend an alteration at the

moment. I am not misrepresenting him in that regard.

Mr. S. O. Davies: It is no use the Minister's pretending that all employers are prepared to make advances to those who have been on strike, or not at work. Comparatively recently cases have come to my notice in which employers employing many men will not give any help until pay day arrives.

Mr. Orme: My argument is a little different from that of my hon. Friend; I am not in favour of employers doing this. I feel that if the worker is entitled to supplementary benefit he should be able to get it. We have argued that point in detail in Committee, and we want to put it on record in the House. We want it to be known that we are opposed to subbing. We feel that it is an indignity to the workers. We feel that the benefits—supplementary benefits or unemployment benefits—should be paid to workers who qualify. These are State benefits, to which everybody contributes. The Minister is removing some of our basic rights.

Mr. Prentice: The Secretary of State said that we have heard his argument before. We have indeed. We have been unanimously unimpressed by it. We are talking here of people who may have been without income for six weeks. The breadwinner is paid two weeks late. In the first two weeks of an industrial dispute, during which he is receiving earnings, he is not qualified for benefit, but when he returns to work he does not receive any earnings for two weeks. What the Government are saying is that families—not merely strikers, and not merely non-strikers—who are brought into the ambit of this Bill and who qualify by all the normal rules for supplementary benefit for six weeks will receive it, as a right, for only four weeks. That is what we consider to be the injustice.
7.30 p.m.
The fact that until the recent past it was not the custom of many people in this situation to apply for supplementary benefit as of right is no argument at all. The Government, quite rightly, and the previous Government, have encouraged them in other circumstances to apply, when they are entitled to it, for benefit.


They have said, "Come along and apply for it; it is yours as of right." There is no logical reason at all for applying different standards in this case.
The Secretary of State's speech a moment ago was really a justification of the Clause and was not at all a reply to the substantial point of the Amendment that there should be here a disregard equivalent to the disregard given in other parts of the scheme in respect

of earnings. In the absence of any such reply or any promise by the Secretary of State to consider the matter I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 218. Noes 240.

Division No. 417.]
AYES
[7.33 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Albu, Austen
Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Allen, Scholefield
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsden, F.


Ashley, Jack
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Ashton, Joe
Golding, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Atkinson, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Meacher, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John


Beaney, Alan
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bradley, Tom
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horam, John
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Delargy, H. J.
Kerr, Russell
Richard, Ivor


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John


Driberg, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Sillars, James


Evans, Fred
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn, E.
McGuire, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)




Spearing, Nigel
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Spriggs, Leslie
Tomney, Frank
Whitlock, William


Stallard, A. W.
Torney, Tom
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Strang, Gavin
Wallace, George



Strauss, Rt. Hn, G. R.
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)
Weitzman, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. James A. Dunn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Astor, John
Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger


Awdry, Daniel
Green, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gummer, Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar


Boscawen, Robert
Havers, Michael
Neave, Airey


Bowden, Andrew
Hicks, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Braine, Bernard
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Normanton, Tom


Bray, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Brewis, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hooson, Emlyn
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buck, Antony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peel, John


Burden, F. A.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hunt, John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
James, David
Pounder, Rafton


Channon, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chapman, Sydney
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pries, David (Eastleigh)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, William (Surrey, E.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Redmond, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Kilfedder, James
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cockeram, Eric
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper, A. E.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dixon, Piers
Longden, Gilbert
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Simeons, Charles


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Luce, R. N.
Sinclair, Sir George


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
McCrindle, R. A.
Sonef, Harold


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Spence, John


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Sproat, Iain


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Fernner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fowler, Norman
Maginnis, John E.
Sutcliffe, John


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow. Cathcart)


Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman







Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Waddington, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Woodhouse, Hn Christopher


Tilney, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Worsley, Marcus


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wall, Patrick
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Trew, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hn. George


Tugendhat, Christopher
Ward, Dame Irene



Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Hugh Rossi


Vickers, Dame Joan

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 26, leave out from 'Schedule' to end of line 3 on page 4 and insert:

'(a) any amount which he receives by way of repayment of income tax by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment; and
(b) any payment which he receives from a trade union by reason of his being without employment during a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment

shall be taken into account only in so far as such payment exceeds the personal requirements of the claimant as established by the Supplementary Benefits Commission'.
As the Clause stands it reduces the disregard for the families of strikers applying for supplementary benefit from £4·35 currently to £1. This we regard as a response to the hysteria on the benches opposite, particularly of some of the wilder men of the Tory Party who, from 1969 onwards, have believed that the best way to deal with strikes was to attempt to starve the wives and children of the strikers. This was in spite of the fact that the current disregard was a long-standing practice of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and before that of the National Assistance Board. It was fully in line with the policy of the previous Administration that these disregards should be maintained at this level, and the Amendment seeks to maintain this situation.
I explained our attitude fully in Committee, complaining that the wives and families of men on strike treated in the way the Clause proposes would be hard hit. I said that innocent people, for example, people affected by a lock-out, would be badly affected by the proposals, and that considerable injustice would be done to people who had no connection with the strike but happened to suffer from being within the grade and class provision which the Donovan Commission regarded as a considerable injustice which should be dealt with by legislation.

The previous Government were proposing to deal with it by legislation, but the present Government have refused to do so.
The arguments which we put forward, including the figures which we quoted illustrating how badly families would be hit, were rejected by the Secretary of State on a majority vote in Committee, as a result of a speech made by the Secretary of State which was not overburdened with facts or notable for its accuracy or its relevancy to the subject under discussion. I will reply briefly to the Secretary of State's comments. He recognised that I had a valid argument when I commented on the injustice done to people who were adversely affected by the grade or class provision as the result of a strike. Nevertheless, he said that this was:
… one slender barrier, perhaps, to irresponsible strikes."—OFFICIAL REPORT., Standing Committee F, 13th May, 1971; c. 128.]
That was not a statement which he had thought about. The right hon. Gentleman was on his way to a Cabinet meeting and intervened because he thought that he should say something as he would be missing later on. But this is not a slender barrier to anything.
The Secretary of State agreed with me that these proposals were unjust to people affected by the grade or class provisions. He accepted my comment about men affected by a lock-out, so half the argument he gave me straight away. When the Secretary of State conceded my point, he was moving away from the posture of traditional neutrality in industrial disputes which Governments of different political complexions have taken over many years. The blame is on the strikers, and it is they who suffer as a result of this legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that we were proposing to treat single people differently from married people because single people do not get supplementary benefit. Of course single people


require different treatment, because they have no dependents who are innocent in any industrial dispute.
In dealing with a partial disregard of strike pay, the Secretary of State held the view that a low disregard would discourage strikes. That suggestion shows an abysmal ignorance of what happens in industry and on the shop floor. This ignorance shone like a beacon throughout the whole Committee stage and in the earlier proceedings on the Bill. The only argument which the Secretary of State could adduce for refusing to maintain the present disregard of strike pay was that only a minority of people get strike pay. That is not relevant to the argument about what the disregard should be.
The Secretary of State put forward a pretty poor case. His arguments fell when we listened to and answered them, and when one reads them one can see how weak they are. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State must be getting poor briefing, or perhaps they are not reading their briefs or thinking about the subject.
The most interesting argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was that lower paid workers did not pay tax and their position would not be affected. This was misleading. If I were feeling mischievous, I would say that it was a mischievous comment. It is certainly untrue. One finds from the income tax tables that a married couple, with one child not over 11, with an income of £18 a week would be paying £41·85 tax in the tax year 1971–72. A person on strike for four weeks, not drawing anything for the first two weeks, would get back about one-third of the tax for this period. Clearly, they would be affected. So it is not only the higher paid who would benefit from maintaining the disregard at the present level but the people who are earning £18 a week and even less than that. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary persistently declare their sympathy with the lower-paid workers, yet they put forward arguments like this which are blatantly untrue.
This is an entirely reasonable Amendment. We ask the Government to reexamine their souls, or, if they do not have souls, their minds, on this subject. Playing the game proposed in this part of the Bill certainly will not cut the num-

ber of strikes. It will hurt innocent people, the wives and children of men who are involved in industrial disputes. No previous Government, whether Conservative or Labour, have taken up this posture and it is not a posture which the Government should be taking up in 1971 in this advanced community. The Government may have thought further about this subject since the Committee stage, but I have not much hope of getting acceptance of the Amendment, or even an answer.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Normally in debates on social security one finds hon. Members putting forward competing claims on all-too-limited resources to deal with particular needs. This is often done on an all-party basis, such as occurred in the campaign for the chronic sick and disabled, persons who, incidentally, received a more generous response from the present Government than they had ever experienced previously.
On previous Amendments the Opposition have been urging competing claims for resources and have resisted every cut-back in benefits given out in the social security system because they think that high priorities are being eliminated by the Bill, although they have not been able to present very much in the way of argument.

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman has not been here for half the time.

Mr. Clarke: I have not perhaps been in the Chamber for as long as the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), but I have listened to as much as I can stand from the Opposition benches, with convenient intervals, during the afternoon.
It cannot be claimed on this Amendment that a high social priority is being defended by the Opposition. This Amendment seems to give the game away as to why such pressure is being maintained by the Opposition. This Amendment makes it clear that so far as the Labour Party is concerned nothing is to be allowed to compete with the demands of organised labour, particularly when it is involved in industrial action. Hon. Members opposite often speak passionately about social policies and express a genuine concern about the aged, the sick and the disabled in terms of social security, but on this Amendment they


are urging the case that the battalions of organised labour, who are now in a privileged position when on strike, should be treated in a special way in relation to supplementary benefit.
In the present situation of social policy supplementary benefit is the main weapon in a somewhat inadequate armoury, until rather larger-scale measures are taken to deal with poverty. It is a means-tested benefit which goes to those in the worst position in society, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission often steps in literally to save from starvation some of the most inadequately paid and inadequately maintained people in society.

The Amendment seeks to preserve a situation in which the Supplementary Benefits Commission, acting in a manner that was never intended by Parliament, seeks to benefit the better-off striker—I use that term comparatively—by giving him generous treatment in the form of supplementary benefit by allowing a disregard, which is now to be stopped. The Amendment seeks to continue a unique situation which involves the presumption that the more one earns and the less one needs assistance, the more one is entitled to draw from the Government. Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who, of course, was the previous Labour Front Bench spokesman on this subject, but who lately has been most effectively attacking what hon. Members opposite are seeking to defend in this Amendment.

It is no good the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) glossing over the fact that a limited category of better-off and organised strikers will alone benefit from the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of £18, and because of the change at the lower end of the tax scale, for which the previous Government were responsible, tax now starts to be paid by some people at a very low level indeed. However, it will be the majority of better-off strikers who will benefit from this Amendment, if those strikers are well off enough to qualify for P.A.Y.E. refunds. They are either well off enough to be in a privileged position for P.A.Y.E. refunds to be disregarded up to £4.35, or they are in receipt of strike pay which

is disregarded to the same level. The people who will be affected by the Amendment will tend to be those people involved in organised trade unions who when on strike will have the backing of a powerful union which can give them strike pay.

The other category of people the Amendment will seek to protect is those who take part in long strikes. Supplementary benefit cannot be claimed until a strike has continued for 11 days. What is being defended by this Amendment is the position of those people who either qualify for P.A.Y.E. refunds or who are getting strike pay and also take part in a strike which has lasted for at least a fortnight. For that reason the Opposition are not urging any social priority. They are backing the big battalions of people who indulge in long strikes, with an organised trade union behind them, and they want to preserve the position in which supplementary benefit is paid on a more generous scale than Parliament ever intended in relation to those people. The Amendment fits somewhat ill into the generality of the Opposition's thinking in social security matters.

I had the doubtful privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on this Bill. It has been interesting today to see the slight difference in the case urged by the hon. Member for Rotherham, speaking officially for his party, and the case put forward in Committee by hon. Members, who are not present at the moment, urging their interpretation of what the Labour Party would like to happen. Although the hon. Member for Rotherham simply wants to preserve the position whereby the striker is not entitled to benefit on his own account but that only his family is so entitled, with disregards being allowed on certain matters, that was not the demand being made by his hon. Friends in Committee. They did not at any stage accept the basic principle, which was accepted by both Front Benches, that a man on strike is not entitled to supplementary benefit. They saw this anomaly as a useful step on the way to getting supplementary benefit for the assistance of those on strike.

I do not want to attack any particular Member in his absence. I would only refer to the fact that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and


Salford, West (Mr. Orme) at no time conceded that supplementary benefit should be denied to strikers. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Salford, West was examined on his view, he said that if an amendment were wanted to enable strikers to get the full supplementary benefit, he would be only too glad to oblige. That is why hon. Members opposite defend this anomaly. There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who see the use of supplementary benefit as a valuable support for militant industrial policy such as we have seen.

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner indicated assent.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) nods agreement.

Mr. Skinner: There are two sides to every strike.

Mr. Clarke: But this is using public money in support of a militant industrial policy which hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to defend. It is no good the hon. Member for Rotherham saying that this makes no difference to the length or number of strikes. It would be preposterous to pretend that the Amendment provides any barrier to industrial action. Hon. Members opposite seek to defend such action and they want to keep the position that way. This may be only a marginal contribution to the strength of a strike and its unity but anything which makes a financial contribution to a strike and makes the position of a striker that much better during the strike, is a contributory factor in the situation.
A union would not pay strike pay if that financial support did not assist its members The supplementary benefit paid in this unintended way by a long-standing practice which it is difficult to justify plays some part in using public money to maintain industrial actions for longer than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Skinner: This speech should be circulated in Nottingham.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Clarke: I should be glad of the hon. Member's assistance in publicising my views to my constituents.
But if this small amount of public money is used to support industrial action by the big organised unions in a long strike, it is our opinion—not the opinion

of the wild men, I might say—that it is the less socially desirable strikes which will benefit. There is no field in which there is less justification for using public money than long strikes by big unions with organised bargaining power.
Some hon. Members opposite with more extreme views have been backing up every inflationary, pure wage demand strike since Christmas, and public money is being used to support the very sort of strike which does most harm to the disabled, the low wage earner, the person on supplementray benefit and other beneficiaries for whom the Commission should be working. So, despite the way in which the hon. Member for Rotherham concluded, I hope that the Government will not weaken but will acknowledge that this part of the Bill has to be defended and that we think that a most valuable change is being made and a long-standing abuse ended,

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) moved the Amendment with great brevity, and I shall speak in like manner—particularly after the bold and sound speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke). I am sure it will do him nothing but good if hon. Members opposite give his speech wide publicity in his constituency.
Fair-minded people, on whichever side of the political frontier, will agree that the present arrangement, which is in defiance of Parliament's expressed will in Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act—namely, replacing strikers' personal requirements, which the Act disallowed—is very unpopular with every part of the population.
The hon. Member for Rotherham accused us of responding to hysteria and quoted the Secretary of State. So I shall have no hesitation in quoting his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). We are, in fact, responding to his considered and balanced views in the New Statesman of 4th September, 1970:
Since I believe Sir Keith is a man of principle … let him turn … to the present extraordinary rules for income tax refunds for strikers. For many years, the law has been interpreted as requiring the Commission to disregard these refunds in assessing the needs of the striker's family. This mainly benefits


the higher paid worker … Quite apart from its economic effect in encouraging strikes and its outrageous social implications, the gravest doubts were voiced in the highest legal circles a few months ago about the legality of this interpretation of the law.
All we are doing is ensuring that the legality of the law is accepted and promulgated and is firmly upheld, that the outrageous social implications of the present arrangements are swept away, and that we do not concentrate benefits on the higher-paid workers.
The hon. Member for Rotherham took a rather dangerous line, against the background of poverty being alleged to be relative, in saying that the tax guillotine now comes down so low for the average working man that tax refunds occur at low levels of income. Let him be reassured. We believe that the tax threshold, as a result of six years of Socialism, is intolerably low, and we are prepared to recognise the relativity of poverty by deliberately and systematically raising this threshold so that, increasingly, more and more people will not have to pay tax. Therefore, increasingly, the benefits of the present arrangements will be concentrated—unless we accept the Bill as it stands—upon a diminishing range—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West) rose—

Mr. Alison: I see the hon. Member cooking up a serious Opposition argument here, but poverty is relative, and if the present arrangement exists, tax refunds will be made available to sustain a group of people who will be held increasingly to be the most prosperous.
The law as promulgated by successive Governments must stand, and we can think of no argument which can be put against it by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) in two minutes which can deflect us from our firm assurance that the Bill is both equitable, fair and bipartisan. We hope that the House will unhesitatingly accept the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Loughlin: If I spoke on this subject for 102 minutes, I would make not the slightest impression on the Under-Secretary. I am always amused when he quotes statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—

Mr. Skinner: Tricky Dicky.

Mr. Loughlin: I could not care two hoots—

Mr. Skinner: Nor could I.

Mr. Loughlin: —about the speeches and statements of my right hon. Friend.
I was not preparing an intellectual argument. I am far too modest. I wanted to deal only with two points. One was the lion. Gentleman's criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) about the tax threshold. My hon. Friend was, in fact, rebutting an argument used in Committee and by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) today—that the Amendment would merely assist the higher paid on strike. My lion. Friend said that: a man with a family, with a child over 11, would be caught under the tax threshold if he were earning over £18 a week.
The Under-Secretary said that that was an indictment of the Labour Government and that at a subsequent date the Conservatives would raise the threshold. That is all very well, but he did not deal with the fact that until it is raised the lower-paid will be caught. In other words, until the threshold is raised, the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham is completely valid.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe stated his case with clarity and lucidity but, as with the speeches of his hon. Friends, one gets the impression that he and his colleagues believe in the guilt of the striker—that whenever a strike takes place, the strikers are always at fault. If the hon. Gentleman had had any experience of industry, as he is likely to have in the coming years, he would know that there is never a strike in which either the workers or management are totally to blame.

Mr. Skinner: That is not right. You will have to modify that, Charlie.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend's friendly intervention shows that we have different experiences in the trade union sphere. I have been active in trade union affairs since I was 18 and I will remain active in them until I die. I was a full-time trade union official for a number of years. My experience is that even when the workpeople are ostensibly to blame for a strike, the guilt is never always on


one side and that even in those circumstances management must accept part of the responsibility.
The logic of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is that, although there may be guilt and innocence among those who will be affected by this legislation, the Government are right to apply a rule of thumb law and say "Whether you be innocent or guilty, the same sanction will apply to you." That is a denial of any kind of equity, and if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to circulate his speech among his constituents and debate the matter, I will be prepared to discuss it with him in his constituency whenever he likes. If the Government are accepting the principle that, innocent or guilty, the sanction shall apply, heaven help us in our approach to social security matters.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) on having made his first speech on this subject, at any rate since the beginning of the Committee stage. I agree with the Under-Secretary that he made a bold speech, but it was the sort of boldness that loses marginal seats. In my view, the hon. Gentleman started on the wrong premise and, therefore, inevitably came to the wrong conclusions.
The Under-Secretary adduced only two arguments. The first was about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and in that the hon. Gentleman merely demonstrated that once my right hon. Friend had left office, sight was lost of the fact that not only the higher-paid would benefit from our proposals.
I have deliberately obtained copies of the tax tables to examine this exercise. It is clear that many families on very

modest incomes indeed would, after a lengthy strike, benefit from the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the tax tables he will discover that the lower paid also get a big advantage. Because of the way the P.A.Y.E. system works, there is a build-up and the amount of tax that goes back at an early stage, after April, is not high for the lower paid, whereas for the higher-paid it rises very steeply, and within a few weeks there can be a greater build-up. It is clear, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was arguing a strong point.

Mr. O'Malley: That is not so. It is at about the half-yearly point, between October and April, that a person in that situation is most advantaged. In other words, the lower-paid worker would at that half-yearly point benefit from our proposals.
The Under-Secretary made a new point when he talked of the intention to raise the tax threshold. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) did in his last Budget when he took 2 million people out of taxation. Even if the Government were to raise the threshold—even at a time of rapid inflation, which they are apparently unable either to cure or to control—that would be of little help simply because every year fewer people would benefit.
It is clear that there is no meeting of minds between the two sides of the House on this issue, and I therefore, without further ado, urge my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 246.

Division No. 418.]
AYES
[8.18 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Albu, Austen
Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Ashley, Jack
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Ashton, Joe
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Bradley, Tom
Cohen, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Concannon, J. D.


Beaney, Alan
Buchan, Norman
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)




Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Delargy, H. J.
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dormand, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Eadie, Alex
Leonard, Dick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Sandelson, Neville


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short. Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foot, Michael
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Golding, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stallard, A. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Hamling, William
Mcacher, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Varley, Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hilton, W. S.
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitehead, Phillip


Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Bert



Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Mr. James Hamilton


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Andrew
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brains, Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bray, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brewis, John
Clark William (Surrey, E.)


Astor, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clegg, Walter


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bryan, Paul
Cooke, Robert


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Cooper, A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Buck, Antony
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Batsford, Brian
Bullus, Sir Eric
Cormack, Patrick


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Burden, F. A.
Costain, A. P.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Critchley, Julian


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Crouch, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Curran, Charles


Boscawen, Robert
Channon, Paul
Dean, Paul


Bossom, Sir Clive
Chapman, Sydney
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.







Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt. Hn, Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dykes, Hugh
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Eden, Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Luce, R. N.
Sharples, Richard


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mac Arthur, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, R. A.
Simeons, Charles


Fookes, Miss Janet
McLaren, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy



Fowler, Norman
McMaster, Stanley
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugn (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Soref, Harold


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Madel, David
Spence, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnis, John E.
Sproat, Iain


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Maude, Angus
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Gower, Raymond
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stokes, John


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sutcliffe, John


Gummer, Selwyn
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tilney, John


Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar
Trew, Peter


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Holt, Miss Mary
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hornby, Richard
Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, W, R,


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nott, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Onslow, Cranley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Howell, David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Waddington, David


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wall, Patrick


James, David
Peel, John
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Warren, Kenneth


Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Weatherill, Bernard


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pounder, Rafton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wiggin, Jerry


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilkinson, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Worsley, Marcus


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton. E.)
Younger, Hn. George


Kinsey, J. R,
Rees, Peter (Dover)



Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. Hector Monro and


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Tim Fortescue

Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 29, leave out:
'(whether paid to him or not) to which, while'
and insert 'which, while he is'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It will be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 32.

Mr. Alison: I am sure that that will be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The two Amendments fulfil an undertaking which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), which can be found in columns 161 and 162 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings. Their effect is to ensure that persons whose tax refunds have to be


taken into account in assessing supplementary benefit shall have them taken into account only where they are available. This was an area of uncertainty about which we were anxious to reassure the right hon. Gentleman, and to safeguard.
We still have as the final safety net, as it were, in this contingency, the benefit of the discretionary powers of paragraph 4, Schedule 2, of the Ministry of Social Security Act, but in response to what the right hon. Gentleman said we have tried to make assurance double sure by these Amendments. I hope that the House will find the Amendments acceptable, and agree that they will, as we feel, secure the cast-iron reassurance which the right hon. Gentleman sought.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Prentice: I thank the Under-Secretary for meeting the point. We are grateful for small mercies. We shall be much more grateful if we get some more substantial mercies and if some of the larger points we raised can be met by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 32, leave out:
'he becomes entitled (or would become entitled' and insert 'become available to him (or would become available to him'.—[Mr. Alison.]

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 10, at end add:
(6) Subsections (3) and (4) above shall not have effect if the person concerned was not participating in nor directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we discussed Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 14, at end add:
(11) This section shall not have effect if the person concerned was not participating in nor directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work.

Mr. Prentice: One of the difficulties that we face in discussing the Bill in public is the relative success of the smokescreen that has surrounded its real provisions. In a very effective debating speech on the last Amendment, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth

Clarke) spoke against the use of public funds, as he put it, to back up strikes.
Many people throughout the country imagine that that is the sole effect of Clauses 1 and 2, that in some way they withdraw an unreasonable subsidy from strikers. I will not go into the merit of the use of these provisions regarding strikers. Many people have failed to recognise, however, that we are talking here about strikers' families and are in effect reducing the standard of living of people who are below the supplementary benefit threshold by £3·35 a week and also—this is the subject of the Amendment—we are similarly penalising the families of considerable categories of non-strikers.

The Amendment attempts to alter that position. The position as the Bill stands is the same position as that followed in the main legislation affecting unemployment and supplementary benefits. There are six categories of people who are disqualified from receiving the main benefits in the event of a trade dispute at their place of employment—those who are participating in the dispute, which may be a lock-out and not a strike; those who are directly interested in the dispute; those who are financing the dispute; and anyone in a grade or class of workers any of whom are participating in or directly interested in or financing the dispute.

This rule in terms of the main legislation is no longer seriously defended by anyone. I am sure that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that his own Department, then the Ministry of Social Security, gave evidence to the Donovan Commission in favour of a change in the law so as to remove four of those six categories. That would have confined the disqualification to those who are participating in the dispute or those who are directly intereted in it. The Labour Government proposed to implement that recommendation.

Sir K. Joseph: I must be being very dense this evening. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were six categories and then mentioned only three.

Mr. Prentice: I am sorry to have to go through them again—those participating in the dispute, those directly interested in the dispute, those financing the dispute, and those in any grade or class of workers any of whom are doing any of


those three things. It is three multiplied by two which equals six. The Donovan recommendation was to remove the disqualification on all those except persons participating in or directly interested in the outcome. As I said, it was a recommendation which arose from a lot of advice which the Donovan Commission had had, including advice from the Ministry of Social Security. The Labour Government had legislation in hand to implement that change.
The right hon. Gentleman went some way, I think, to meet the arguments on this question in an interesting intervention in Committee. He told the Committee about conversations which he had had with representatives of the T.U.C. on the previous day, and he said that he had given an undertaking to them to this effect:
I would … talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment later in the year, after some months, when we see what the strike climate is, in order to reconsider again the Government's view on the Donovan recommendations.
So, apart from the argument between us tonight, the House would, I think, welcome further news of any progress which may have been made in the Government's thinking on the question.
Our case on the Amendment is simple. We are against the existing provision in the main legislation. We consider that it ought to be reformed according to the Donovan proposals. But, in view of the merits of the case, it is outrageous to extend further disqualifications to the families of people who are not participating in or directly interested in the trade dispute.
The best that the Secretary of State could do in Committee was to say:
We believe that treating the grade and class group in the same way as those primarily involved in trade disputes is a minute—perhaps very slender—additional safeguard against irresponsible trade disputes, and we must adhere to that opinion for the moment."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F, 25th May, 1971; c. 259–60.]
In what way is it an additional safeguard? The only meaning that can be attached to that argument is that the Government are saying that they want to hit at strikers not only through their own families but through the hardships of the families of their workmates who are not

participating in the strike. This is a mean, petty and completely unjustifiable position to take. It is bad enough to try to put on pressure through the families of those participating in the dispute itself, but to put on the indirect pressure which arises from taking away up to £3·35 a week from the families of non-strikers, families who have already qualified for supplementary benefit by proving their need and proving that their family resources fall below the threshold, is particularly mean and petty, and it is an indication of the Government's abject failure in the whole field of industrial relations.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: First, I apologise to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) for being a few minutes late. I was elsewhere on the other side of the building and could not get here soon enough.
I speak on this Amendment because it concerns the provision of benefits for those who, while not participating in a strike, are laid off because of it and who cannot draw unemployment benefit because of a weird series of exclusions, some of which have no place in the social security law of the 1970s. Because the Amendment recognises the inequalities of some of these exclusions and the Bill itself does not, I have to say that I shall not be able to support my right hon. Friend in his desire to have the Amendment rejected, and if the Opposition divide the House I shall abstain.
As it stands, so far as it penalises men who have gone out on strike of their own volition the Clause is fair. But it catches men whose connection with the strike is, to say the least, tenuous. It catches men like a constituent of mine, a Mr. Wales. Mr. Wales is 63 years of age. He has been a member of his union, and he has served his union and his three employers, for 47½ years. He has been on strike only once in that entire period, in the 1930s. He is a blacksmith, whose union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, is not on strike, but the branch of the Boilermakers Union in his factory is, and because its members are in what are called like trades he has been temporarily laid off.
He is a man of 63 who has given 47 years' service, with just one strike. He came to see me and told me that his


income would fall from £25·50 to £9·15 because other men were going on strike. The local section of his union had made an agreement at the beginning of the year, immediately and efficiently, and therefore he naturally wanted to return to work. I have heard arguments from some of my hon. Friends that in a situation like that it is good to penalise such a man because that makes the others go back to work quickly. I find that argument totally unconvincing, first, because to a man of 63 the thought that he may eventually be able to return to work is no compensation.
In many ways more important, the man cannot apply for unemployment benefit. That is the crux of the situation. He is not unemployed of his own choice. He would be working if he could, but because other men have gone on strike he does not have the choice.
The basis for exclusion from unemployment benefit is that a strike takes place in the same works or department as the man who is laid off, and that he is a member of the same trade as the strikers and therefore may be said to have financial gain. The man about whom I am speaking will have no financial gain at all. He has made his agreement weeks before and is waiting to go back to work.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I have had an identical case in my constituency. Is not the present position that unemployment benefit is completely disallowed, even under the legislation of the previous Government?

Mr. Archer: That is right. But it would be unfair not to mention that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme) fought very hard over that point with the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), when he was Secretary of State, but failed. It does not make it any less of a case because when we have come into government we have not done what the Opposition failed to do. I have no praise for the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East also failed to understand the case, and did not help my hon. Friend's constituent. Equally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not helping my constituent. I oppose him tonight in the same way as the hon. Members for

Walton and Salford, West opposed their right hon. Friend. There is no difference. It is just that your problem has become our problem—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I have no such problems at this moment, fortunately for me.

Mr. Archer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always known that you have absolutely no problems. It is my Minister who has problems, and one of them will be me. The present law is based on an assumption that there is a special relationship or community of interest between a group of workers identified by a grade or class.
8.45 p.m.
I want to say here that the leader of the union I have dealt with, Mr. Hurst, has been totally honourable and first class in dealing with the men who have been out of work. At this time in the history of the Conservative Party and of the reaction created by the Industrial Relations Bill, I want to say what a pleasure it has been to work with him and what a credit he is to the trade union movement. Whichever side we are on, I believe that we should all be much better off with better union relations with the people who do the job.

Mr. Dan Jones: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Believe me, most trade unionists are like that if they can be encouraged.

Mr. Archer: I accept that entirely. My experience in this case has been wonderful. Mr. Hurst has put himself out to tell me what are the arguments that will be put against me and what are the weak grounds of the case I am putting. He has done all in his power to avoid my standing here unqualified to put the case.
Let me put a case which comes nearer home. We are all Members of Parliament. As back benchers, we are all on a salary of £3,250 a year. What if that mob over there decided to strike for more pay? I could not blame them. But supposing we on this side then discovered that, because of the strike by hon. Members opposite, we were classed with them. We would be brought down to £1 000 or £750 a year because of the inadequacy


of the Labour Party. Were that to happen, I suggest that my right hon. Friend would have this Amendment through so quickly that we would not know what was happening. I regret that he has not recognised the hardships caused to working men by the operation of this rule.
I believe that we must realise that the Industrial Relations Bill does not go far enough. In it we are removing many of the gross anomalies which exist in the social security and industrial safety regulations, but we are only doing half the job. We shall never get the support of the worthy men on our side if we do not show that a claim as good as that of my constituent is treated with compassion.
Compassion is the crux of the situation. I have been full of admiration for the way in which the Government have desperately attempted to do something about the finances of the country. But we spent considerable time at the last election saying that, coupled with this, we would show compassion. This Amendment shows compassion. It is the sort of thing that we should do as a party keen to show that we are with the workers and the trade unions when they are in trouble.
My right hon. Friend has a reputation as a fair and compassionate man. I therefore find it hard to understand why he opposes the Amendment. It would, I admit, be only an interim measure until the whole question of the availability of unemployment benefit is fully considered, but it would be an interim measure that would show good will. If we are not willing to show good will to men such as Mr. Wales, I shall have to abstain tonight.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is always encouraging to hear any hon. Member defy his own Front Bench, although I must admit that I did not like the disrespectful way in which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) referred to Opposition Members as "that mob over there". I do not mind when I use that' "expression about that lot over there, but I object when it is used about me: I have more justification.
Seriously, I hope that when he urges the House to reject the Amendment, as

I presume he will, the Secretary of State will go a little further than the assurance which he gave in Committee. I draw his attention to the specific case of Burroughs, a large employer in the new town of Cumbernauld. I am not a trade union sponsored Member and some of my hon. Friends have much more detailed knowledge than I of the sometimes mysterious working of large unions, such as the A.E.F., when there is a long dispute.
There is a serious dispute in Cumbernauld, serious in its effect on Burroughs and on the new town, but it involves only the manual workers and an A.E.F. agreement. In the course of the dispute, members of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union were suspended, as were members of DATA. The test case for unemployment benefit for the former has been satisfactorily dealt with in their favour, because theirs is a separate agreement and they are clerical workers, but the DATA, case has not yet been settled, although it has been under consideration for some eight weeks. I do not wish to go into the details of the arguments and I give this example merely to indicate that this is a problem which arises because of the increasing size of the trade unions.
The Transport and General Workers' Union is even worse in this respect than the A.E.F. There is very little common interest between various sections of some unions now because of the size of the unions. In this instance, a group of people, draughtsmen, are covered by a separate agreement. They cannot remotely stand to benefit from any settlement made with the manual workers, other than in the sense that anyone who gets a wage increase must affect someone else who at some time looks for a wage increase. The fact that in this instance they are in the same factory only makes it more difficult to sort out.
No one underestimates the difficulty of solving this sort of problem, but I hope that the Secretary of State will go slightly further than he did in Committee and will assure us that this difficult problem will be closely examined.

Mr. Orme: We all appreciated the courageous speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) and the forthright manner in which he put his


case, even if we did not agree with every sentence. He categorised the problems as they now exist in industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I and others constantly raised this issue with the Labour Government. The T.U.C. submitted evidence on the subject to the Donovan Commission, which accepted the T.U.C.'s view and said in its report that the grade and class disqualification from benefit should be abolished—a strong independent opinion in favour of a change.
Nobody can justify a worker not receiving benefit because of a grade or class disqualification simply because colleagues are involved in what may not be a strike but a lock-out. It is not the size of unions and their complexities which causes the problem, but the complexity of industry itself, with its overlapping and the fact that one grade of workers, perhaps far from the point of the strike, may rely on others to provide materials, and there may be many such links.
The Minister was honest enough to concede that the argument we are putting is right. He said that he could not accept it at this time because he felt that it was not the right time to introduce the change. His fear was that it might have political repercussions for his party and affect the attitude which many in his party take towards trade unions. That is the only reason we can attribute for the Minister's statement. I am convinced that a Labour Government would have introduced it if they had been returned. The Government have an opportunity to remove the anomalies. They have not done so, although the case is overwhelming. It has been made from both sides of the House and I hope that, if the Minister will not accept this, my hon. Friends will divide and that we will continue to press until this anomaly is removed. It is an absolute injustice to industrial workers. Workers who come up against this feel that it is a tremendous injustice and that it ought to be removed. We ought to make a start in the House this evening.

Sir K. Joseph: The disqualifications which are the subject of this debate were introduced by the Labour Government in 1948 in the National Insurance Act. They have remained, through a series of Conservative Governments

and through the last two Labour Administrations. The new factor is that the Donovan Commission—and I do not think hon. Members will expect me to be expert on every detail of it—broadly accepted the argument that these disqualifications were no longer as relevant as they had been.. As the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, I told the Committee that the Government were not altogether happy with the changes we were making to the rights of strikers and their dependants in Clauses 1 and 2. These are extended by the disqualification arrangements to those not directly involved in the trade dispute.
This is not primarily in my domain. Therefore, I am not the minister who will have to make the main decision. I know enough to recognise that the problem is complicated by the factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), that in large trade unions there are larger numbers of different crafts and classes of workers than in smaller trade unions. I recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) said, that there may be individuals, or large numbers of individuals, who want nothing more than to get back to work, who have no part in the institution of a trade dispute and who must regard the present arrangements as unjust. There is even in theory—and I emphasise it is theory—the position of the lockout.
After accepting these different points of view as having some validity, I must emphasise that the reason why the Government do not feel able to accept the Donovan recommendation—and I am only speaking on this case because a by-product of that decision influences this particular legislation—is not as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, politically motivated. I have the greatest respect for the members of my party in the country, but I do not think that they are aware of the minutiae with which we are dealing, important though they are. This is not a political issue; it is an economic issue. I explained in Committee that the presence of numbers, large or small, of people suffering from a trade dispute without having played a part in initiating it may or may not be a factor in bringing the trade dispute to a close


earlier or perhaps in avoiding it altogether.
9.0 p.m.
I am not telling my hon. Friend the Member for Louth that that is a perfect example of human justice. Very few human arrangements provide perfect examples of human justice. But the Government have to balance the slight possibility that here is, on the one hand, a restraint against trade disputes which damage the country and huge numbers of people, in many cases seriously, and an undoubted example of deeply felt injustice, on the other. It is this balancing which the last Government did and which the present Government are doing.
On balance, and in the national interest, and for economic, not political, reasons, we have decided that the time is not ripe to bring in this change.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not being done for political reasons. But would he not agree that if he were to do this it would be seen in the country that people who had been laid off because of a strike would be getting benefit and it would be one of the arguments against strikers which members and supporters of his party are making such a fuss about.

Sir K. Joseph: That was not why they took the decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that because I was involved in the decision.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Whether or not the Opposition accept it, I accept that the decision was not politically motivated. That thought had never crossed my mind. But to say that because the Labour Party did it when it was in power we should not do anything about it is not much of an argument for good law. We may as well keep the same Government the entire time.

Sir K. Joseph: I shall learn one day not to give way so often. The argument to meet my hon. Friend's point is next in my notes.
We felt unable, at a time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was introducing his Industrial Relations Bill, to accept the

Donovan recommendation because there happened to be at that time a great surge of trade disputes which was injuring the interests of the people, and it would have been a very rash Government which removed a restraint, even a small restraint, possibly even a notional restraint, on the surge of trade disputes. I am not using emotional words, but there was a surge of trade disputes which very adversely affected large numbers of people and from the influence of which the country is still seriously suffering.
That is why we did not introduce this change and why the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has every reason for pointing out that the changes we are introducing for those involved directly in a trade dispute will affect some people who are not directly involved in it. But the reason remains valid.
I undertook in Committee that later, when we can see the climate of industrial relations, I should discuss with my right hon. Friend whether it was time, subject to legislative opportunities, to move. This is no more than a commitment to consult my right hon. Friend whose prime responsibility this is. I repeat that commitment. I have not hidden from the House any ingredient of the decision-making process involved.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: There is the additional point about supplementary benefit, which is entirely a matter for the right hon. Gentleman. Even though he may wish to keep the existing law as it is, there is no reason to prevent his making a difference in the treatment given by way of supplementary benefit.

Sir K. Joseph: But that would be to accept that the Donovan recommendations are right, valid and relevant at the moment, and that is a step that the Government are not yet ready to take. Moreover, it would marginally reduce a restraint which may have some relevance to the national interest. That is why I still harbour the hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendments. If he does, I hope that my hon. Friends will resist them.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) supported the


Amendment in the most powerful way possible, by quoting an individual case. That is always better than generalisations. I would point out to him that although the situation of his constituent may be unjust at the moment, if he and his family would otherwise qualify for supplementary benefit in this period the Bill will make his situation worse. It is a question not of maintaining an unjust situation but of extending it in a new direction. I hope that that fact may lead other hon. Members opposite to abstain from voting.
The Secretary of State seemed in a very uncomfortable frame of mind. His fluency, which is usually quite remarkable, was absent. He even took refuge in saying that this was not primarily his responsibility. With great respect, it is his responsibility. This is a question of supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit, the rules for which are his responsibility.
In the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is seen to be serving the purposes of the Government's policy on industrial relations. Many of my hon. Friends have pointed out that the Bill should be known as the Industrial Relations (No. 2) Bill. The Secretary of State has offered no defence of the existing situation, still less an argument for making the situation worse in regard to the categories which are the subject of the Amendment. He said that it was seldom possible to achieve perfect justice. We are not asking for that; we are proposing a modest Amendment to avoid extending an existing field of injustice. I am sure that my hon. Friends will want to vote against the Government, and we hope to have some support from the benches opposite.

Mr. Anthony Fell: It is of little use for one of my hon. Friends to say, under his breath, "Oh, God!". I do not know who it was, and I do not care. I want to press my right hon. Friend to explain something a little more fully. Unfortunately, I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I do not know what went on in it. I did not read the Report. But one could not have sat here and listened to what has gone on for the past 20 minutes without becoming worried.
My right hon. Friend says that he entered into certain commitments in Committee, about which he said something this evening. As I understand it, he said that he had given some sort of commitment to reconsider the question whether the surge of strikes that were going on at the stage when this proposal was turned down still pertained. May we be told a little more precisely what he means when he refers to a commitment? From what he said, it was a very frail commitment, and not easily explained. Does it have any weight? Either something will be done or it will not.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) was speaking the truth—and what he said seems to have been accepted by hon. Members on both sides, so I assume that he was—it would seem lo me that the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) was right to say that my right hon. Friend was not easy when he was speaking a few moments ago. So could my right hon. Friend give a little bit more of an assurance on this to those of us who have been listening so that we may be a little easier ourselves?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. Friend. The commitment is a very limited one. It is to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment at a later stage whether the industrial climate of the time justifies the Government in considering at a suitable legislative opportunity an extension of the Donovan recommendations. That would mean taking the risk of removing with the disqualifications what may be found to have been a small restraint on the number and length of trade disputes. That is the limit of my commitment.

Mr. Fell: That sounds an extremely important commitment. Could not my right hon. Friend help just slightly more by being a little more specific about what he means by "later stage"? It could be next year or the year after or the year after that. Is it unreasonable to ask about this? I do not want to put my right hon. Friend in too difficult a position, but this puts us in a false position.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 246.

Division No. 419.]
AYES
[9.11 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moyle, Roland


Allen, Scholefield
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Ronald King


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Ashley, Jack
Hamling, William
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Oram, Bert


Barnett, Joel
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Healey, R. Hn. Denis
Paget, R. T.


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Hilton, W. S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest G.


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J T. (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur
Sillars, James


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Small, William


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leonard, Dick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Delargy, H. J.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dormand, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McBride, Neil
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Tinn, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Ellis, Tom
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hon. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, George


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Tea (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitehead, Phillip


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Willey, R. Hn. Fredrick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S,
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. James Dunn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Astor, John
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Percival, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hicks, Robert
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton


Balniel, Lord
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Holt, Miss Mary
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Body, Richard
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bowden, Andrew
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Braine, Bernard
James, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bray, Ronald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brewis, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jessel, Toby
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rost, Peter


Bryan, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kilfedder, James
Sharples, Richard


Burden, F. A.
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Simeons, Charles


Carlisle, Mark
Kinsey, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir George


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kirk, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Soref, Harold


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lane, David
Spence, John


Churchill, W. S.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clegg, Walter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Cockeram, Eric
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stokes, John


Cooper. A. E.
Longden, Gilbert
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Loveridge, John
Sutcliffe, John


Cormack, Patrick
Luce, R. N.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costain, A. P.




Critchley, Julian
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Dean, Paul
McLaren, Martin
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Dixon, Piers
McMaster, Stanley
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Tilney, John


Dykes, Hugh
Maddan, Martin
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Eden, Sir John
Madel, David
Trew, Peter


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fell, Anthony
Mather, Carol
van Straubrnzee, W. R,


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maude, Angus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mever, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Moate, Roger
Walters, Dermis


Gardner, Edward
Molyneaux, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Warren, Kenneth


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wilkinson, John


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gorst, John
Mudd, David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gummer, Selwyn
Normanton, Tom
Younger, Hn. George


Gurden, Harold
Nott, John



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Hector Monro.

Clause 2

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT PAID AFTER RETURN TO FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING A TRADE DISPUTE TO BE RECOVERABLE IN CERTAIN CASES

Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 21, leave out '£2.00' and insert '£3.00'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvey Anderson): I hope that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 21, leave out '£2.00' and insert '£4.00'.

Mr. Alison: This Government Amendment implements a promise made in Committee about protected earnings, the level below which a person's income may not be reduced by the operation of post-dispute benefit recovery arrangements. It replaces £2 by £3 as the amount by which protected earnings are to exceed a former striker's supplementary benefit requirements

Mr. O'Malley: During Committee the hon. Gentleman defended the proposals of the Bill as being entirely fair and reasonable and promptly agreed to move the figure from £2 to £3, and we are grateful for that. However, the protected earnings for a man, his wife and three children, one child over 5 and two between the ages of 5 and 10, have moved from £11·70 of £12·70. The figure is still low in view of the fact that some people have to meet mortgage repayments for which they can get no help from supplementary benefit. They therefore have acute problems which continue during the oft-work period. Therefore, although we would have preferred our figure to have been included in the Bill, we welcome this move from £2 to £3.

Mr. Alison: Having weighed the arguments on both sides, I would point out that the figure originally was £2, the Opposition wanted the figure to be £4, and we have settled for £3. This is probably a fair result; it is a typical bit of British compromise. The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that it remains a buoyant figure because it is automatically carried up by the regular upratings of supplementary benefit. Therefore, I trust that the figure of £3 will prove to be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

FURTHER PROVISION FOR PREVENTING DUPLICATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY AND OTHER BENEFITS

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 18, leave out from '(1A)' to end of Clause and insert:
An amount payable under paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) above may, at the discretion of the authority administering, be abated so as to permit recovery to be made from arreas in replayment of corresponding supplementary benefit paid to the claimant's separated dependants.

This Amendment relates to a difference of view about the purpose of Clause 3, on which we had a short debate during the Committee stage. This matter was set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill as follows:
Clause 3 slightly enlarges the scope of Section 16 of the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 (which relates to the prevention of duplication of payments), so as to permit recoveries to be made from arrears of certain social security benefits in respect of supplementary benefit paid to the claimant's separated dependants.

That sounds complicated enough. It is saying that the provision will close a loophole through which people are getting too much supplementary benefit for separated dependants. But the Clause itself contains 30 lines of very complex phraseology. It was these lines to which I took exception in Committee. The Under-Secretary kindly invited some Amendments to make it more simple. These words may not meet the need, but a Statute should be tied up as neatly as possible.

In this case, the matter will be decided not in court but in a tribunal under the existing Acts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said, the introduction to the social security handbook says:
An exclusively legal approach to a non-contributory benefits scheme can only lead to a narrower and not broader concept of the 'rights' of claimants, since those rights are or should be social as well as legal. It will also tend to a more restrictive rather than a more generous or adaptable range of entitlement.

The Clause as it stands not only cannot be understood on a brief reading or on any reading at all, but probably ties up the matter too tightly. Very little in my


Amendment does not already appear in the Explanatory Memorandum, which is not printed in the Bill as amended, or in the Clause.

The clause passes three tests which I would apply to any legislation of this sort. First, does the Clause clearly express its purpose? As written it does not, but with my Amendment it would. Second, does it show the basis on which its purpose shall be implemented? I suggest that the Clause as written does not, but my Amendment does. Third, does it give any latitude for interpretation in dealing with exceptional cases? The Clause as written ties it up far too tightly.

We all know the case, either in court or in a tribunal, in which an exceptional situation arises, and it is argued out in court before the chairman or the president, who in the end has to say, "We are very sorry; you have a very good case, but, with the law as it is, you cannot have it". Then, we all say that the law is an ass. So in this sort of case, we need to give a little discretion to the authority administering the law, to provide for that exceptional case which no legislation can ever foresee.

If the Clause is passed as it is, this is what will happen. It will be far clearer with my Amendment, because it will express the purpose as the Clause at the moment does not. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us why he cannot accept it, if he cannot. Perhaps the wording that I have suggested is not that which he would suggest. Perhaps if he accepts this principle, he will agree that it should be amended in this way in another place.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) has fairly responded to an invitation which we extended in Committee—that if he could find a refinement of terminology which would achieve the same object, we would look at it on Report. He has certainly produced a commendably brief version, but I am genuinely sorry to tell him that it falls short of what we have to try to secure in the Clause. I say "genuinely", because I share with other hon. Members the shock and horror of reading some of the legal jargon which has to go into statutory form to give law its precise and indisputable meaning and which invokes all the expertise of lawyers.
9.30 p.m.
In so far as the law must be precise and indisputable and not capable of any shadowy interpretation or meaning, the hon. Gentleman's proposal does not contain the necessary exactness, and it might help if I were to explain precisely what is necessary so that he has a chance to weigh carefully the words I am using when he reads them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and by that means he will see the exact extent to which the Amendment falls short in this respect.

The Amendment does not, first of all, cover the Commission's power to determine the amount of supplementary benefit that would not have been paid—that is, if the person entitled to the insurance benefit had paid the dependency increase thereof over to the person drawing supplementary benefit. That is the first objection we have.

Secondly, the provision as drafted in the Bill limits recovery to the extra amount of supplementary benefit payable as a result of the person claiming insurance benefit not having a dependency increase thereof, while under the Amendment it would be open to the insurance authorities to offset the whole amount of supplementary benefit paid to the dependant against the arrears of insurance benefit dependency increase.

In these circumstances, and despite the commendable attempt on the part of the hon. Gentleman to introduce clarity with simplicity, I regret that he has still not satisfied the full rigours of the legal requirements in this matter. I therefore ask him to withdraw the Amendment because it would be to the disadvantage of all those involved if we do not maintain the necessary precision.

Mr. Spearing: It would obviously be wrong of me to pursue this point at greater length tonight, though I may do so in another way in another place.
The Under-Secretary persisted in mentioning the judiciary, despite the fact that it is extremely unlikely that this provision will be a question of dispute in a court of law. The Clause refers to the discretion of the administering authority. I should have thought that the exactitude to which the hon. Gentleman referred was almost self-defeating, but in view of the hour and his pleas, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

AMENDMENT OF QUALIFICATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, SICKNESS BENEFIT AND INJURY BENEFIT

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
Despite all the window dressing that has accompanied the Bill, the hard fact remains that Clause 7 is the main part of the Measure. It affects far larger numbers of people than any other part of the Bill simply because those who are sick, unemployed or industrially injured are a massive number compared with the relatively few people who are involved in industrial disputes.

Clause 7 saves most of the money that the Bill will save. It will result in a net saving of £19 million of the £21 million that the Bill as a whole will save. This is part of the redistributive policy of the Government, taking away from those in need to give tax concessions to the well-to-do.

We are, of course, against the whole Clause. We think it is totally wrong to deprive the sick and unemployed of three days of benefit to which they have always been entitled through their contributions. But that part of the Clause which refers to industrial injuries is, in a sense, the worst part of all.

Part of the background is that industrial accidents have been increasing year after year. The last Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, relating only to those forms of employment covered by the Factories Acts, gave a total of 322,000 accidents. It was the seventh successive year in which there had been an increase. It was a figure 50 per cent. higher than that six years earlier. Incidentally, the figures show that over the last decade we have lost six times as many days of working time through industrial accidents as we have through industrial disputes.

We are not talking simply about industrial accidents or diseases in general. We think now particularly of those people who make their living in exceptionally dangerous industries. We think of the workers in the mining industry: it is some years ago since David Lloyd George spoke of "blood on the coal", but there

is still some blood on the coal—not as much as there was, but still some. We think of the workers in the construction industry, in fisheries, on the docks, and in those industries where people are particularly liable to industrial accident, industrial disease, or both. Part of the price paid for the rest of the community now enjoying a more affluent standard of living than once it did is the heavy rate of casualties in industry, and in these industries in particular.

We should also bear in mind that those who earn their living in the heavy manual industries often have no sick pay scheme or, if they have, it is a scheme often less favourable than that enjoyed by those in white-collar employment, who also lead a more sheltered existence.

I therefore ask the House to consider that this is a particular form of obligation. The community has recognised this in several ways. Ever since the two main Acts came into effect in 1948 the allowance for industrial injuries has always been higher, for the sort of reasons I have mentioned. Also, when a man suffering from an industrial injury or disease has gone back to work, even full-time work, and has a continuing disability, he qualifies for a disability pension or various allowances. The treatment afforded to industrial casualties has been similar to that which we have given to the casualties of war: the rates of benefit and the rules concerning them have been broadly similar.

The Clause creates for the first time a distinction, in that people suffering from industrial injuries will be deprived of half a week of benefit. I add the further point that when the Industrial Injuries Scheme came into effect in 1948 it took the place of the old workmen's compensation scheme, and there was much discussion at the time in the trade union movement about whether or not this was a good bargain. I believe that in most respects most trade unionists thought that it was a good bargain. There were certain aspects of the new scheme which were very much superior to the provisions of the old workmen's compensation scheme. But there were disadvantages, too; some people in some circumstances got less after 1948 than they would have done under the old workmen's compensation legislation. I like to think of this as a kind of bargain


between the Government of the day—a Labour Government—and the trade union movement representing the casualties of industry; a bargain which has now been breached by this provision.

What would be the cost of the Amendment? When I asked this in Committee, the Under-Secretary said that the cost of exempting industrial injuries and diseases from this provision would be about £3 million a year. Therefore, out of a total saving of £19 million the Government would, if they accepted our case, be sacrificing £3 million. My point is that at a moment when the Government are said to be seriously considering injecting into the economy large sums of extra spending power in order to try to revive the economy and create new employment opportunities, it would not be a bad idea to start with £3 million for those who have suffered industrial injury or disease. It could easily be afforded in this situation—a situation which is now probably different on that point from that when the Bill was originally drafted.

We object to the whole Clause. We think it retrograde to deprive the sick and unemployed of the benefits to which they are entitled. But it is particularly mean, and hard to justify, to extend this disqualification to those who are the casualties of industry, to whom the House and the country owe a particular duty.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: The last time I spoke on this issue was on 2nd April, 1968. In those days we had a more sympathetic Front Bench. My right hon. and hon. Friends who were then Ministers were prepared to tell their civil servants, "Stick this one back into the pigeon hole. We are not having this". Those who were then in Opposition and argued with us against our Front Bench and offered to take the whole Conservative Party into the Lobby with some of us against our Front Bench if it were necessary to carry the matter to a Division should act consistently tonight. However, thankfully, we managed to make our Front Bench see sense, and that provision was withdrawn.
The first misconception that must be put right is that the Bill does not abolish the three waiting days. I wish it did, because this was the whole tenor of my argument in the last debate. I wanted the three waiting days to be abolished. The Secretary of State is retaining the

three waiting days. The Government are taking the money away from those who are, and were, entitled to it.
I had intended to quote some of the speeches which have been made by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). However, I will refrain from doing so, because the speeches are there for people to read, and they make enlightening reading. In one interesting passage the noble Lord was pleading for people who were on a certain rate of pay, and he was telling them how much they would suffer, though at that time much depended on the size of the family.
I want to put this matter into perspective. Only five years ago I was working in a coalmine and was having to suffer sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, and injury benefit. There are very few hon. Members opposite who have had to work that hard. I have four children. It is not then a case of £5 or £4 a week, which is the sum which the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison)—talked about in Committee. It is a much greater sum than that for many people. For me, three waiting days at present would amount to £7·11. The National Union of Mineworkers accepts that on average a miner is off work sick or injured 28 days a year. We cannot stand by and see breadwinners deprived of this amount by this provision. This is why we are fighting and why we hope to talk some sense into the Government, even at this late stage. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash would reply to the debate.

Mr. Orme: We had him in Committee.

Mr. Concannon: I want to have him tonight. He made an amazing speech on Tuesday, 15th June, when he talked about an average of £4 or £5 a week. Then we had a tirade about holiday pay, and so on. What has holiday pay to do with this matter, or is this another such effort as the Bill which is now going through another place? It all ties up with certain things which are being done in the Industrial Relations Bill about sick pay and redundancy pay.
The Under-Secretary, when he was trying to put over this business about the


three waiting days, said this in Committee of the mining and quarrying sector:
In this sector … 95 per cent. of full-time manual men workers are now covered by employers' sickness schemes."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F; 15th June, 1971, c. 368.]
Not a coal miner in this country is covered. The sick pay scheme in coal mining does not start till after the sixth day. So the miners will lose on the three waiting days. In fact, coal miners have lost all ends up under this Government, and this is just another example of what is going on.
9.45 p.m.
I thought it brass-necked cheek of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash to make the quotation he did from one of my speeches. Incidentally, I am amazed that he should have done so, because I thought that it was only my mother and I who read them, but that is by the way. This is what he said:
'the hon. Member for Mansfield said, Second Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance (No. 2) Bill…' I am for the abolition of the waiting days because they are no longer desirable. They restrict production and we can ill afford to do that these days '."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F, 15th June, 1971; c. 376.]
I do not mind him quoting that because that is my position, but it was disgraceful to quote it in the sense that I was agreeing with him that it should happen here when the whole tenor of my speech was the other way. I should not have minded so much if he had read the sentence before and the sentence after that passage. I shall read the whole piece to the House, if I can find it. I have so many quotations here that I cannot find it any too easily.
Here is the whole quotation, so the House can see how the hon. Member took those two sentences out of context:
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I should like to see this incorporated from the very first day of sickness.
Now comes the part I have already read—
I am for the abolition of the waiting days because they are no longer desirable. They restrict production and we can ill afford to do that these days.
Now comes the next sentence:
But we should put something in the place of the waiting days."—OFFICIAL REPORT 2nd April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 247.]

My argument always has been, and always will be, that the correct method of going about this and doing some justice for some of our most hard-working people in the most dangerous industries is to make sure that they are paid from the very first day. I took great offence at the way the hon. Member used quotations from my speeches in defence of the Government's proposal here. That is why I was hoping that he would be here to answer this debate himself.
That is my position. I hope that the Secretary of State will be wise enough to take account of what I have said. Some of us have had to work in dangerous industries. Some of us have taken accidents and illness as a matter of course in our jobs. In those days I could ill afford to lose £7·11 for my first three days of sickness. I needed it for my family then, and they or people like me are much more in need of it now.
It is no good complaining about mine workers putting in for high wage increases if the Government keep imposing things like this on them. On my calculations, over last year to this year mine workers would have to put in for £5 a week just to stand still, never mind anything else.
I leave it at that. I hope that the Secretary of State, like the Minister in his place previously, will take this proposal away and stuff it back in the pigeonhole somewhere in his Department.

Mr. Heffer: Every hon. Member on this side will agree entirely with everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon).
I was working once with a fellow joiner on top of a movable scaffold on a building site. After I had got down from the scaffold I heard a cry and saw him clinging on to a rolled steel joist because the scaffolding had moved away. It was lucky that I was round and was able to get him down. Not all workers in the building trade are so lucky. Others could have a scaffold collapse and find themselves on the ground suffering from serious injury. In the building industry and the shipbuilding and ship repair industry the rate of accidents and injuries is very high, not always because workers are careless or employers are not carrying out safety regulations but in many cases because of the very nature of the job.


When a man has served his apprenticeship in the industry and is earning his living in it, he knows that that is the risk he takes by working in it. Such workers are not millionaires for the risks they take, and they are the very people who suffer most because of short time, unemployment, sickness and industrial injuries. Yet the Government are taking away some of the rights and benefits they have enjoyed until now at the very moment when they require assistance.
I said in Committee that the Secretary of State was an honest man. That is true, because he said there that the £19 million was supposedly being saved on the three days' sickness, unemployment and industrial injuries non-repayment after two weeks, and in this case the £3 million that will be saved purely for industrial injuries, because, "We had to keep our pledge to reduce taxation for the mass of the people". But the savings in taxation mean very little to the lowest-paid sections of workers, because they pay out more on school meals and milk, dental charges, prescriptions and so on. The list is as long as my arm, and I cannot give it all. The surtax payers, the friends of the Tory Party, are the ones who are really benefiting. The £3 million being saved goes to help keep the pledge to them. That is what the argument is all about.
The workers in my industry, the building industry, get the worst end of the stick every time. They are in a sense the economic regulator, because when things are going badly economically they are out of work. They suffered unemployment more than any other section of the population under my Government, and suffer it even more under the present Government. I said in the House then—and I will never mince my words—that we allowed unemployment to rise too high, and my people suffered considerably. They also suffer from industrial injuries, and require assistance at the very time when it is being withdrawn from them.
We must point out the hypocrisy of Conservative hon. Members. During the debates on the Bill introduced by my party the Opposition spokesman was the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who said:
On Second Reading, I stated our position on behalf of the Opposition absolutely clearly. I said that it was our intention to vote against

the Clause and that we would remove it, so far as we were able to, in Committee."—OFFICIAL REPORT 23rd May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 930.]
But the Opposition did not mean it. They said it only because they were then in opposition. They were trying to buy votes. Now they bring in a Bill which does the opposite of what they said they would do. They are hypocritical in this matter. They will never be forgiven for it. The industrial workers—those in mining, building, engineering, shipbuilding, ship-repairing and other industries—who have to rely on these benefits will never forgive them for what they are doing. They might as well know now that they are stacking up votes against themselves at the next General Election.

Mr. Eadie: I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who made a witty contribution about the robbery by the Government of the three waiting days. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is anger in the coalfields about this. If the Government fail to concede on this Amendment, the miners in their militancy will get this back in some other way. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred, on a previous Amendment, to people rushing the factory gates of one firm because, if they were a minute after time, they would lose a day. That applies to the miners. He described graphically how, inside that factory, the men were timed when they went to the toilet. The point is that such rushing to some extent causes a higher incidence of accidents. For many years, we have tried to persuade men that they were only punishing themselves by rushing to the pithead to get down the pit, because they became to some extent accident prone.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, I have had some experience as a miner. It is not so long since I was working at the coal face. I have suffered some serious accidents. I was an invalid for almost two years at one time as the result of an accident. Before coming here, I was a brusher, which is a dangerous job, dealing with stone, taking roofs away, and so on. A brusher is constantly in danger. Yet the Government propose that men engaged in these dangerous and arduous occupations should be penalised if they have a family.


This will penalise mine workers in particular. It is mean and petty and shows to some extent the class bias of the Government. They are so concerned about their friends, the surtax payers and their other supporters, that they are prepared to rob manual workers by this kind of proposition.
I should have liked to give more illustrations of this mean, petty and vindictive action, but, in deference to the wishes of some of my hon. Friends, I will conclude by saying that the miners may be robbed of their three days, but, as their conferences are held and their decisions are made, the miners, if the Government dare to do this—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Monro.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Eadie: —will certainly take action as a union and through their Members of Parliament to make sure that what is stolen from them is returned to them and to all manual workers.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Last November when the Chancellor introduced his mini-Budget I said that that part of the statement which referred to the very problems which we are now discussing was the meanest and the most contemptible statement made at the Government Dispatch Box since 1931. I have no reason to think that that was extravagant language, because in all the social legislation since 1931 there has not been anything as mean or as contemptible as this.
Besides being responsible for social security, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for our health services. Let him go to any major hospital in any major industrial centre and visit the accident ward and see some of the burnt men, some of the men with broken backs, some with brain damage, and then let him say that he is proud that he is to withhold from such men and their wives and children the first three days of industrial injury benefit.
Those of us who come from mining and industrial stock and have had to face this problem with our relatives year after year know that the accident itself, the recognition that a man has a disease itself, is a blow. But to save a paltry £3 million from those who are injured in creating the wealth of the country, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to introduce legislation of this kind.
This, too, is divisive legislation, because there are millions of people who will not be affected. No civil servant who falls off the stool and sprains his ankle or twists his knee will be affected: nobody says that he will take home less pay the week that that happens. Nobody says that it will happen to any local government employee.

Mr. Skinner: Or Member of Parliament.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am about to come to Members of Parliament. There is something indecent and immoral about any Member of the House of Commons, who will get his full pay if he has an accident, or is sick, voting that the victim of an industrial accident should not get any benefit for the first three days. If hon. Members have any moral character they ought not to take their parliamentary pay for the first three days when they are away sick. If they are prepared to go into the Lobby and support taking three days' pay from those who have been injured in creating the wealth of this country.
I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman can, on reflection, be proud of this. I can only hope that that compassionate society about which he ha/ spoken will be in evidence tonight and that he will have second thoughts on this and do justice to those who have been injured in the service of their country.
I know that there is no hon. Member opposite who would apply this to the Armed Forces. If it were to be suggested that admirals, generals and so on who had met with an accident in serving their country should not get the first three days of their pay we all know what solidarity there would be in defence of such people! But we are dealing here with ordinary men and women who are entitled to this benefit. They did not go out to work to get injured; they were injured doing a job without which the


country would be poorer. In these circumstances I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever other concession he will not make, this one should be made. Not to do so would be both mean and contemptible.

Mr. Skinner: I am pleased to be able to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Fernyhough—[Laughter.] I have made one or two mistakes in this House but that is about the best. I meant the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough)—the place where the marchers come from. My right hon. Friend has taken away some of the things that I wanted to say, because as he pointed out, some of the people who are not affected by the three waiting days, and who never have been, are Ministers, civil servants and the very insurance officers who decide to disqualify those who are injured. Even the doctor who signs the certificate saying that a man is unfit for work as a result of industrial injury does not have to forgo any pay when he is sick. This provision will affect the vast majority of industrial manual workers. It will particularly affect miners who are suffering from chronic emphysema or from chronic pneumoconiosis. Those people will be affected by the iniquities of this Bill.
It will also affect the miner who suffers from dermatitis. This disease occurs in an aggravated form every spring and autumn. I have dealt with thousands of these cases and taken them to the medical appeals tribunal. What this Clause says is that a miner could lose up to £9 a week, depending on the number of his dependants. One gets the impression from reading the reports of the Committee proceedings that the Tories believe that there is an element of abuse among people who claim industrial injury benefit. I want to set out the hurdles which every man who is injured, whether in a pit or in a factory, must jump in order to claim industrial injury benefit for the three waiting days. There are 10 of them.
First, he must report the accident. If he is in the mining industry, that may create difficulty. There may not have been witnesses of the accident, which means that the employer can suggest to the insurance officer that there is an element almost of insecurity about the claim. The man must then go to the

general practitioner or, if the case is severe, hospital. The general practitioner, having issued a certificate, is not bound to leave it at that. There is a little box at the bottom of the certificate saying, "Any other remarks". I know of several instances in which the doctor was not totally satisfied that the man suffering from, say, a slipped disc was genuine and so he wrote "R.M.O." In other words, although he is giving a certificate, he is saying to the insurance officer that he wants the man to be referred to the regional medical officer. The result is that the man must be subjected to this independent examination.
Notwithstanding that, the man can be sent to the regional medical officer for an independent examination anyway. Men are picked out at random. That is another hurdle which the man with perhaps emphysema or dermatitis must face. It does not end there. The insurance officer, despite the overwhelming evidence, may decide, and in many cases does decide, to disqualify the man from receiving industrial injury benefit. The man can appeal. If he is working in a factory where there is no proper trade union organisation, the chances are that he will not appeal because he is frightened to death of the system. Where the workers are organised or there is a local "ombudsman" or trade union official to give advice and help, he may well appeal.
If he appeals, and if he is to sustain his claim, he needs to provide in almost every case additional medical evidence, and in almost every instance someone must find the money for a consultant's fee to furnish the medical evidence. The local appeals tribunals are supposed to work fairly, but they rely on the decisions of the commissioners, which, in the main, whatever else hon. Members opposite may say, militate against the ordinary industrial worker. Having got to the local appeal tribunal, and by dint of the good efforts of his representative, the man might well succeed. But then the insurance officer can, despite the fact that the man believes he has succeeded in sustaining the injury claim, refer it to the commissioners again.
Those are the 10 hurdles which a man who wishes to sustain an injury claim may have to jump in order to get the


benefit of the three waiting days' provision. My description will, I hope, eliminate for all time the belief that there is any abuse except in a small minority of cases which escape the very severe scrutiny which a man must undergo in order to make his claim stick.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) talked about the miners' sick pay scheme. There is no such scheme that allows a miner to obtain sick pay from the first day. He does not get it until he has been off for a week. In Committee it was suggested time and time again by the Under-Secretary that 90 per cent. of the miners were covered by the scheme, but the only people in the mining industry who are covered are the officials and the upper echelons of management.
I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer); one thing that is certain about this Bill—and the Tories would do well to remember it—is that every time an industrial manual worker goes home with a shattered leg, chronic emphysema or any one of the countless other injuries that manual workers sustain, every time he receives a certificate from the doctor, sends it to his local insurance officer, and finishes up on half-pay, he will remember and register his vote accordingly, in a much more substantial fashion than he did on the last occasion.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It has been a pleasure for all hon. Members on this side of the House to hear him, because he spoke from his own experience of industry. He showed, first, how weak the Government's case is and, secondly, how little they know about this matter. If we were discussing the Bill we should say that it is a mean and miserable Bill— but we are not allowed to talk about it. If we were discussing the Clause we should say that it is one of the meaner and more miserable Clauses—and we would say that subsection (2), which the Amendment seeks to delete, is the meanest and most miserable part of the Bill.
The provision that we are proposing to delete is likely to save about £3 million

for the National Injuries Fund. It is really not saving anything. It is really taking £3 million from the pockets of those who are least able to pay. That sum is being taken by a Government whose actions clearly indicate that they are anxious to give that money to those who are already better off.
By this subsection the Government propose to take £3 million from men who are injured at work. This does not happen to other people who injure themselves at work. We have all heard of the story of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich to give to the poor. We now have the modern Tory version, whereby the injured are robbed to pay those who are already better off. Part of the Tory purpose—stated in some detail in the Conservative Party manifesto—was a determination to cut public expenditure. No one could deny that that was part of the manifesto on which the Conservatives fought the General Election.
Even those who still want some reduction in public expenditure hardly believed that the cuts envisaged by the Tory Party would be cuts in industrial injury benefit paid to men who had sustained accidents at work. Those who supported the Conservatives did not realise it—even many hon. Members opposite. We have heard from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)—who made one intervention and rapidly departed from the Chamber-that the cancellation of payments for the first three waiting days for those on strike has always appealed to Tory minds, but I hope that a reduction in respect of the three waiting days for those who are sick has little appeal even for hon. Members opposite. The reduction of payment for the three waiting days for those who suffer injury at work can have no appeal to anyone who has a mind.
What does the reduction in respect of the three waiting days do? Does it in any way prevent accidents? If one could make a case that it would prevent people from having accidents by making them more careful one could perhaps argue that there is something to be said for the proposal; but it does nothing of the sort. All it does is extract £3 million not only from those who suffer accidents but from the families of those who suffer accidents. It penalises families.

Mr. Orme: The children.

Mr. Jones: Yes, the children. It might be written on their tombstone when we bury the party opposite and the Government along with it.
The Tory defence, which we have heard several times again today, is that a Labour Government proposed to do this sort of thing. The Tories can keep on saying that as many times as they like. It is true that the Labour Government proposed something of the sort, but the greater Labour movement soon disposed of it. It is a matter of great pride to us that our Government saw the wisdom of being prepared to take advice from outside the House from people who knew more about it than even the Labour Government.

Mr. Orme: And advice from inside.

Mr. Jones: Yes, from inside the House too, but I was too modest to refer to the part played by my hon. Friends and I wanted to remind the House that the advice came from outside the House also, from people who wanted that proposal changed. They want this squalid proposal changed, too.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover pointed out, the loss of industrial injury benefit for the first three waiting days will not apply to everyone, because some employers will pay from the very first day of absence due to accident. There is this element of unfairness in this Measure, and this unfairness is part of the disgracve of this Measure and why it should not be allowed to go through.
Before coming here I was a school teacher for 17 years. I suppose the only accident I might have sustained in those days was tripping on a piece of chalk. The chances are that any injury I might have suffered would have been a minor injury, but if I had sustained an accident at work I would have received my payment from my local authority from the very first day. Now I represent a mining area where I know serious injuries have occurred in the past and still occur today underground and under this proposal by this Government those miners will receive no payment for the first three waiting days.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there has been some change in circumstances since the three waiting days were

introduced. Talking of some mystical savings he used the phrase that there was some "fat" available and that the sick or injured or unemployed could live on the "fat" which, presumably, they are supposed to have accumulated in better times. There may be some people who have a lot of fat, but I shall not make any personal references to physique because I myself am in a dangerous position on that account, but, if we are talking of fat meaning money which people have saved, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of that must of necessity vary considerably from one part of the country to another and that it is unfair to generalise on this issue.
In a constituency like mine where we have had long periods of high and lasting unemployment, where we have a high accident rate because it is a coal mining area, where we have a high mobility rate because of the geography of the area, and where we have chest and other ailments, the conditions are very different from those which may be conducive to people to save and to develop the kind of fat which the Secretary of State talked about as something on which people who sustain these injuries can live. Personally I would like to throw the Clause and the whole Bill through the window.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the Secretary of State was a generous man—

Mr. Heffer: No.

Mr. Jones: —a kind man—

Mr. Heffer: No. I just said that he was an honest man.

Mr. Jones: I suppose that honest men are as few and far between as generous men. I have on previous occasions said that the Secretary of State claims to be a generous man. He has an opportunity tonight to show his generosity by the way in which he proposes to treat those who sustain injuries at work and by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Orme: We are indebted to those of my hon. Friends who were not members of the Standing Committee and who represent mining constituencies. They have brought a wealth of information and knowledge to the House. Although the Committee was fairly representative,


there was no miners' representative on it. A great deal of industrial injury occurs in the mining industry. In general manufacturing industry and engineering, even with modern methods of accident prevention, accidents are still on the increase. Year after year the factory inspectors report an increase in the number of industrial injuries despite all that has been done by management and men.
By this provision we are treating a certain section of the community, mainly manual workers, many of whom are highly skilled, differently from other sections of the community. A person who receives sick pay from the first day of sickness and full pay during the whole period will not be concerned with this problem, but the millions of industrial workers who are most liable to industrial injury will be disqualified from benefit for the first three waiting days.
Reference has been made to the speech my Mr. James Griffiths in the House in 1967, when he said that the Labour movement and the Labour Party in conjunction with the trade union movement had worked for 50 years to put on to the Statute Book benefits of right for industrial workers. He lived to see the day when the Workmen's Compensation Act was replaced by the National Insurance Act, 1946. The Labour Government at about that time temporarily provided that benefit would not be paid for the three waiting days until a person had been away from work for a fortnight, when he would receive the full benefit. It was the intention eventually that benefit should be paid from the first day, but, unfortunately, that intention was not implemented. The proposals of the Labour Government in 1967 were proved to be wrong and were rejected. The Government just do not realise what will be the reaction of industrial workers when these measures are implemented.
I believe that we must vote against this proposal by the Government and against the Bill as a whole. I hope that the Secretary of State has a much better case tonight than the one he deployed in Committee, because the overwhelming evidence put by this side of the House has revealed in full the meanness of Clause 7.

10.30 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I recognise that the whole subject of the waiting days has

aroused a great deal of feeling among hon. Members opposite, and I congratulate those of them who have spoken on the self-discipline which they have shown in fitting in six speeches in a relatively short time. I hope that they will allow me to develop my reply, which will be a serious answer, without too much interruption, although I shall be talking about things which, inevitably, are at issue between the two sides of the House.
Although the Amendment deals with retrieving the waiting days for industrial injury, it is inevitably part and parcel of the question of whether the Government's policy on the waiting days is right or wrong. There is a special case about industrial injury, which I shall come to later. There are, broadly, three things which can be done about the waiting days. We can, first, keep them as they are, in which case payment in the first three days of a spell of sickness or unemployment or industrial injury, within its connected period of thirteen weeks, falls to be paid and actually received not during those first three days or even in the first or second weeks but, roughly, in the third week—which means often, therefore, though not always, when the man is already back at work. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), in his vivid speech in Committee in 1968, which has been much read, spoke of an element of distortion that sometimes creeps in if we keep the waiting days as they are.
The second alternative is to abolish the waiting days altogether, as the hon. Member for Mansfield wants and as Mr. James Griffiths wanted. The problem about this is two-fold. First, it is difficult to do that in the sense of practicable efficiency without enormous cost. To get money into the beneficiary's hands at once involves a huge operation and great cost. Secondly, I think the House agrees that it would not command a high social priority compared with all the other social priorities.
The third alternative is what is called "making the waiting days absolute"—taking away the right to receive payment for those three waiting days even if the bout of sickness or unemployment or injury continues over the twelfth day.
The Government have decided on the third alternative. Although the Labour


Government changed their minds, nevertheless this choice was one which commended itself to them to the extent that it was introduced and seriously put before the House—although in due course, I agree, it was withdrawn.

Mr. Heffer: Kicked into touch.

Sir K. Joseph: I agree. But the problem remains and the problem would remain for a future Labour Government. I suggest that, whatever hon. Members opposite may say tonight, a future Labour Government are unlikely to change the law back if we change it now.

Mr. Alec Jones: Yes, we will.

Sir K. Joseph: The reasons I shall give are those which I believe would commend themselves to a Labour Government once we have had the pertinacity to carry through this superficially unpopular change. The situation is summed up in one word, which hon. Members may dislike when they see it applied by this Government, but which is nevertheless a word which they have claimed as their own philosophy. The word is "priorities". It is always all right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to claim that a Labour Government have priorities, but a Tory Government have their priorities too—

Mr. Alec Jones: The wrong ones: that is what we object to.

Sir K. Joseph: It is common ground between the parties that a number of improvements are needed in our social services. There are enormous gaps. Everyone would agree that the chronic sick have up to now not been treated properly, that Westminster has just discovered the disabled, and that more needs to be done for the very old.
Both sides would also agree that all cannot be done at once. We have had the most dramatic illustration during the last five years of the impotence of even a Labour Government to do these things. When they were increasing taxation by thousands of millions a year, despite this huge mountain of extra taxation, none of the things which we now regard as essential was done.

Mr. Alec Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is being less than fair. He knows that many of the things that his Government

brought into being, supported by this side of the House, were actually part of the Bill that went through the House in the last Parliament.

Sir K. Joseph: The Labour Party has every reason to be ashamed and infuriated that its Ministers failed to introduce this legislation until the sixth year of their successive Governments. Total taxation increased under Labour, yet these commonly accepted improvements were not carried out—[Interruption.] I am making a simple point—

Mr. Alec Jones: Dishonest.

Sir K. Joseph: All things cannot be done at once. We believe that these three waiting days no longer have the same priority as they once had, for four reasons.
First, the general level of pay in terms of the standard of living that it will produce has gone up. Second, Labour themselves introduced an earnings-related supplement, which brings additional benefit based on earnings in precisely that third week when the three waiting days are at the moment paid for scikness, unemployment and industrial injury. Third, for much, but not all, unemployment there is redundancy pay. Fourth, in the case of sickness, there, to a large extent, though not totally, a system of employers' sickness schemes.
Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the miners' sickness scheme also has waiting days. A miner is not entitled to any occupational sickness benefit unless he is sick or industrially injured for more than six days. But that is precisely the same situation as the waiting days which we are discussing. The money is available and comes in at a later week, provided that the bout of sickness or industrial injury lasts more than six days. The fact of having waiting days does not remove the benefit to those who are sick or injured for more than six days.

Mr. Concannon: This week the miners' conference has passed a resolution to go for sickness benefit from the first day. Will the Secretary of State back them up when they come to Hobart House to see the National Coal Board about this?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman would be very upset if Ministers involved themselves on either side in these issues.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite jeered when I said that we had our priorities, but they were set out clearly in our Manifesto. We undertook to do a number of things, including cutting the marginal rate of taxation at all levels of income, including for the surtax payer who, in our view, has as much right to have relief at his marginal rate of taxation as anyone else, and perhaps more because he has borne more taxation in the past. We also undertook to start the process—it is bound to take time—of filling the gaps in our social service system. Having undertaken to do both of those things, we have, I submit, made a fair start in carrying out those commitments.
The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has cut taxation across its whole range and that through the child tax allowances, which are raised this month, more than £200 million a year will be returned to families with children at all levels of income, providing the same benefit to the lowest paid as to those who are receiving the average industrial manual earnings.
We have also begun the process of filling the gaps this year by, for example, the extra package for the chronic sick, the attendance allowance for the severely disabled, the family income supplement and the age addition for very elderly pensioners. We have begun to carry out these commitments, and to do this we have needed to redeploy the priorities that are no longer as high as they were in the past.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have laid great emphasis on the unique quality of industrial injuries and have claimed that because the number of industrial injuries has been increasing and because these injuries have such a poignant quality about them, they should be exempted from the making of the three waiting days absolute. But even those afflicted by industrial injuries have shared in the general improvement of conditions.

Mr. Concannon: Not all of them.

Sir K. Joseph: Not every individual has done so, but the overwhelming majority have improved their earnings, are benefiting from earnings related supplements and have a share in occupational sickness schemes.
Above all, the person who suffers an industrial injury has received, is receiving and will receive a preferential rate of benefit—£2.75 a week more than sickness benefit. For all these reasons we believe that there is no special exemption justified for industrial injuries from this making absolute of the three waiting days.
We believe that the same reasons that impelled the Labour Government to introduce this proposal will prevent any future Labour Government from reversing what we seek to do tonight, and we believe that the priorities have now changed and that if the Labour Party is so immovable, so unradical and so, in the worse sense, conservative that it will not recognise the changing priorities, then it will never succeed in filling the gaps in the Welfare State which we are trying to fill.

Mr. Prentice: The debate has featured a number of powerful speeches from my hon. Friends, each of them based on practical experience of industry—of the human effects of sickness, unemployment and, particularly, industrial injuiries. We rest our case on this.
Hon. Gentleman opposite have been eloquent in their embarrassed silence, which is not entirely due to the lateness of the hour. Had they had anything to say, they would have said it, but they are too embarrassed to say what is obviously on their minds.
I feel inclined to make a long reply to the points adduced by the Secretary of State, but there is no point in doing that, and it has all been said before. However, I must comment on his use of the word "priorities". We do not accept that the priorities of a civilised Government should include robbing the sick, unemployed and industrially injured of half a week of benefit to which they and their employers have contributed over the years.
10.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State spoke about the modest improvements that have been made for the chronic sick and others. With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. The situation is different from that of the Labour Government in the sense that the Labour Government, throughout most of their period of office, fighting as they were


the balance of payments, were in a situation in which there had to be a transfer of resources into exports. The objects of the Labour Government, particularly following devaluation, had to include both expenditure reductions and tax increases, and every honest person who is prepared to debate these matters seriously will take that as a matter of fact.
But in recent months we have been in a position in which the Government have had the overwhelming duty to release purchasing power, stimulate the economy, and try to fight the rise in unemployment. They could have had improvements for the chronic sick and the elderly without taking the cost from sick or unemployed workers. They could

have had them if they had postponed the priority they gave to tax reliefs to the better-off.

The Secretary of State says that it is a matter of priorities, and, of course, it is. Our priorities involve dismissing the idea that we should take this out of those who are sick or unemployed or disabled from industry. Our priorities are different from those or right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They are more civilised than theirs. That is why we shall divide the House.

Question put: That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 214.

Division No. 420.]
AYES
[10.46 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mendelson, John


Barnett, Joel
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Beaney, Alan
Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Bruce


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Horam, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bishop, E. S.
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Ronald King


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Oram, Bert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'bn &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Judd, Frank
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedge-field)


Dormand, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


Ellis, Tom
Lever, Rt. Hn, Harold
Sandelson, Neville


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Michael
McBride, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)

Stallard, A. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gilbert, Dr. John




Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)


Golding, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Torney, Tom


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsden, F.
Tuck, Raphael




Urwin, T. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, Robert


Varley, Eric G.
Whitehead, Phillip



Waiden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wallace, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Watkins, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. J. D Concannon.


Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Haselhurst, Alan
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Havers, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Astor, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Hicks, Robert
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Balniel, Lord
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Holt, Miss Mary
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hordern, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hornby, Richard
Redmond, Robert


Body, Richard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Bernard
James, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bray, Ronald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carlisle, Mark
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Channon, Paul
Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Kimball, Marcus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Simeons, Charles


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kinsey, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir George


Churchill, W. S.
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kitson, Timothy
Soref, Harold


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Spence, John


Coombs, Derek
Lambton, Antony
Sproat, Iain


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Critchley, Julian
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stokes, John


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Sutcliffe, John


Curran, Charles
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Luce, R. N.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McCrindle, R. A.
Temple, John M.


Dixon, Piers
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Trew, Peter


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Tugendhat, Christopher


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Madel, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Neil
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Waddington, David


Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
Ward, Dame Irene


Foster, Sir John
Molyneaux, James
Warren, Kenneth


Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
More, Jasper
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wilkinson, John


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gorst, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Mudd, David
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey



Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Clegg and


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)




Hannam, John (Exeter)

10.55 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
After the deeply felt debates today, I do not think that the House would wish me to repeat the arguments in detail. I have to explain once again that this Bill seeks to bring about two groups of changes. The first is to bring to an end a small number of abuses which have crept into the social security system, and the second group is to bring to an end a small number of methods of spending the contributors' money, which no longer have the high priority they originally had, and to make more priority use of the money elsewhere.
We have discussed each of the changes at length and with deep feeling and with much experience, particularly from the other side of the House, during the Committee and again today. The arguments for the changes have not been penetrated by arguments from the Opposition. The Opposition have had this difficulty: that with one exception, there is no change proposed in this Bill which was not proposed, even if not carried through in principle by the Opposition when they were in Government.
In the deepest sense, our proposals are all precedented and precedented by those who are now telling us that our proposals are divisive and wrong. They introduced them, even if their Government did not always have the willpower to carry them through.
Because we have had the will power to carry them through, we are able to do more in certain directions more quickly than the last Government. I do not think it is necessary to make a long speech now, but I want to put my view of what has happened over the last months as succinctly as I can. I do not believe that in that remote day when a Labour Government are once against returned to office, that it will be any priority for them to reverse the changes made in this Bill. We shall have moved by then to a recognition of a totally different range of priorities. We shall be more deeply aware of gaps which perhaps we do not even identify now because I hope that successive Conservative Governments will have done much to remedy gaps of which

we are all too well aware now, and when the time comes our more sensitive eyes will see gaps which will come far more clearly to attention, however strongly the Opposition may feel now about reversing the changes the Government are proposing in this Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his constant, courteous and sustained performance in Committee. I thank my hon. Friends, who have generally by their silence, sometimes by their support, and occasionally by their criticism, made this Bill, perhaps, more easy to steer. I pay tribute to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, Front Bench and back benches, for the way in which they have brought the debates to life. I feel that many of their arguments have been falsely based, but I know that they have been sincerely put, in many cases from personal experience. What they have not taken into account is the change which has taken place in the context in which those experiences occurred to them.
The Bill is part of a radical redeployment of resources to meet a higher set of priorities and to remove abuses which have become deeply repugnant to the public, including members of the Labour Party as well as of the Conservative Party.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: The Secretary of State ended by thanking both sides of the House for their contributions to the discussion of the Bill. In the same way, I begin by thanking my right hon. and hon. Friends for the weighty contributions, based on real experience, which they have made, contributions not matched in experience by those from the Government side. Second, I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for the courteous way in which they have not answered the questions and arguments which we have put to them.
The Bill is based on a philosophy which is anathema to the Opposition. I described it earlier today as a philosophy of robbing the sick in order to help the poor. The Bill gives nothing to anyone. On the contrary, it worsens the lot of large numbers of sick, industrially injured and unemployed people. It abandons


any pretence of neutrality in industrial relations, contrary to the practice of successive Governments of both political complexions over many years.
The Secretary of State has made clear that the purpose and strategy of the present Government is to help the better off at the expense of those less fortunate, and he claimed—we strongly disagree with his claim and his priorities—that in order to improve some parts of the National Insurance Scheme others must be worsened.
It is a Bill which increases the amount of selectivity in the social services and social security system, at a time when, in our view, selectivity has already gone far enough and the aim of any Government's policy should be to see whether, how and to what degree selectivity in the social services can be pushed back rather than increased. The present Government have already pushed the principle of selectivity far beyond any sensible limits.

The principle of local participation, which is important and will become increasingly so in the 1970s and beyond, has been summarily rejected by the Government's cavalier proposal to wind up the local advisory committees. The Bill will certainly worsen industrial relations.

The history of the Bill, right from its conception within the Department, has been marked by an almost complete lack of consultation with anyone, including the Supplementary Benefits Commission which will have to operate part of its provisions. By their conduct throughout, the Government have demonstrated that they will brook no arguments, however strong, once they have taken a rigid and dogmatic attitude, as they have on this Bill.

The average wage earner and his family will suffer as a result of the Bill. It is a bad Bill, produced by an insensitive Government, and we strongly oppose it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 167.

Division No. 421.]
AYES
[11.6 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rve)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Atkins, Humphrey
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Jopling, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fell, Anthony
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biggs-Davison, John
Fenner, Mrs, Peggy
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs.[...]


Body, Richard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kershaw, Anthony


Boscawen, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kilfedder, James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fortescue, Tim
Kimball, Marcus


Bowden, Andrew
Fowler, Norman
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; stone)
Kinsey, J. R.


Braine, Bernard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Kitson, Timothy


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gorst, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gower, Raymond
Knox, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)

Lane, David


Buck, Antony
Green, Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Burden, F. A.
Grieve, Percy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Carlisle, Mark
Gurden, Harold
Le Marchant, Spencer


Channon, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Longden, Gilbert


Chapman, Sydney
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Luce, R. N.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacArthur, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McCrindle, R. A.


Churchill, W. S.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McLaren, Martin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan
McMaster, Stanley


Clegg, Walter
Hastings, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Cooke, Robert
Havers, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Coombs, Derek
Hayhoe, Barney
Maddan, Martin


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Heseltine, Michael
Marten, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert
Mather, Carol


Critchley, Julian
Higgins, Terence L.
Maude, Angus


Crouch, David
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Curran, Charles
Holt, Miss Mary
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hordern, Peter
Moate, Roger


Dean, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Molyneaux, James


Dixon, Piers
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Drayson, G. B.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)




Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trew, Peter


Mudd, David
Russell, Sir Ronald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Murton, Oscar
Scott, Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Neave, Airey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sharples, Richard
Vickers, Dame Joan


Normanton, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Waddington, David


Onslow, Cranley
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Simeons, Charles
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Waiters, Dennis


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Soref, Harold
Ward, Dame Irene


Peel, John
Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Percival, Ian
Spence, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sproat, Iain
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pounder, Rafton
Stainton, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John



Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pym, Rt Hn. Francis
Stokes, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Redmond, Robert
Sutcliffe, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Jasper More and


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)



Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mikardo, Ian


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
Hooson, Emlyn
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Atkinson, Norman
Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Barnett, Joel
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Rt Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moyle, Roland


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Ronald King


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael


Booth, Albert
lrvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Janner, Greville
Oram, Bert


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Owen, Dr, David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Probert, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shore, Rt. Hon. Peter (Stepney)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B 'ham, Ladywood)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'He-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Forrester, John
McBride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)


Golding, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Torney, Tom


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)




Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wallace George


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John








Watkins, David
Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. James A. Dunn.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POLLUTION OF THE SEA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: This country as a matter of policy disposes of large volumes of domestic and trade waste to the sea every year, either from pipelines along the coast or within selected spoil grounds adjacent to the territorial sea. The oceans' capacity to degrade and dilute waste products is enormous and it is perfectly legitimate in this manner to use them as a receptacle for waste.
But the self-purifying powers of the oceans are not unlimited and coastal waters very often can provide less dilution than is popularly supposed because the pollutants tend to get trapped in the coastal zones and are prevented from escaping to the open sea. Nor is the behaviour and fate of persistent wastes fully understood. Unless certain limits are set and observed about the nature and volume of waste discharged, serious and lasting damage can be done to the marine environment.
Pollution of the seas threatens to engulf our coasts in gross ugliness and to undermine the marine life in coastal areas. But tonight I want to highlight the risks to public health associated with marine disposals. In England and Wales, the sewage refuse from 6 million people living in coastal towns is discharged into the sea, and the majority of the sea outfalls run out no further than low water mark, and the majority of discharges are not treated.
The Coastal Anti-Pollution League lists nearly 200 resorts in Britain which are defiled by human faeces and sewer contents. In some places it would seem that it is more a matter of going through the motions than going swimming.
Sewage refuse and other matter create some unsightly conditions and pungent

odours and anxiety has also been expressed about bathing from polluted beaches. This fear has a rational basis, because raw sewage contains pathogenic bacteria. A study by the Public Health Laboratory in 1959 concluded that for all practical purposes the risk could be ignored except in areas so obviously and visibly polluted that no one would think of swimming there anyway.
But these findings have not gone unchallenged. For example, a report by the French Consumers' Federation in 1970 claimed that several beaches on the French side of the Channel were positively dangerous, and diptheria and cholera were mentioned. Bathers, said the report, took their lives in their hands.
Likewise, a survey by the Belgian Consumers' Union of resorts on the Continent, published this year, claims that holiday makers run a high risk of contracting any one of nine diseases known to be caused by faecal pollution, including conjunctivitis, enteritis and typhoid. The Italian coasts are rated as the worst, followed by those of Belgium, the Riviera and Spain. The president of the union said:
…. the tests were necessary because authorities, under pressure from commercial interests, had refused to investigate possible links between coastal pollution and disease ".
Infection can also be picked up by eating shellfish which have filtered pathogenic bacteria and viruses out of sewage contaminated waters. Hepatitis virus are carried by oysters, and shellfish harvested from polluted areas have been collected containing polio virus. The Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934, allow local authorities to make Orders proscribing or regulating the sale of shellfish from grounds which have been polluted.
The contamination has been spreading for years and cultivation has been either completely stopped or severely restricted in the rivers Blackwater, Colne, Exmouth, Lynham, Lytham, Roach and Whitstable and in Morecambe Bay, Poole Harbour and the Wash. Free swimming fish can also carry diseases picked up in anaerobic waters. Herrings, sprats, canned and smoked salmon have been identified as vehicles of infection.
Full treatment will kill bacteria living in the sewage, but existing methods of treatment do little to remove nitrates and phosphates in the sludge. These nutrients are harmless in themselves, but they can have a malignant effect because of the changes they induce in the environment. An acceleration in the fertilisation of plant life is caused which gives rise to phenomena called "plankton blooms".
These blooms consist of masses of planktonic organisms. They can spread over hundreds of square miles, liberating toxins which kill or stun fish, and poison shellfish. The phenomenon occurs spontaneously in the marine environment, but it appears that sewage-derived waste can act as a triggering mechanism. In 1968, a spectacular bloom was recorded over the North-East coast of England. It spread out from the mouth of the Forth and stretched right the way down the coast to Flamborough Head in Yorkshire. The bloom was followed by an outbreak of paralytic shellfish poisoning, and 85 people were taken ill.
Marine organisms can extract pollutants in sea water and they store them in their bodies. Their ability to concentrate substances in this way varies from a few hundred to several hundred thousand times the value of such substances in the surrounding sea solution. Contaminations once absorbed can be amplified by marine food webs until toxic levels are reached in predators at the head of the chain—including seabirds, sea mammals and man.
The bio accumulation of pollutants is now recognised as a major health hazard. In America contamination has rendered nine species of fish unfit for human consumption. Last year, as is well known, nearly 1 million cans of tuna fish were withdrawn from the market after it had been found that samples contained un-acceptably high levels of mercury. I agree that this particular episode may have been a false alarm but the fact remains that mercury even in low doses can disrupt the central nervous system and in heavy doses will lead to madness and even death.
In 1953 a mystifying disease made its appearance in Minimata Bay, Japan. A bright, agile teenage child found one morning that he could no longer button his clothes. Soon he began exhibiting

infantile behaviour. His parents, who were naturally worried, took him to hospital. The doctors could not explain his sudden retardation and the child became a hopeless invalid. Another victim was a middle-aged barber whose health gradually deteriorated until, devoid of hearing and body control, he too became a complete invalid.
An elderly fisherman was similarly stricken. Within a week he could no longer walk. Within a month he was severely demented. Between 1953 and 1960 there were 116 cases of "Minimata disease", including 19 in infants. A total of 43 people died and the rest suffered permanent disability. The source was eventually traced to fish and shellfish caught in the bay which had been contaminated by the discharge from a nearby chemical factory.
There was a second outbreak in Niigata in 1965, affecting 30 people and killing five. There have also been oases of mercury poisoning in Sweden and people there are officially advised not to eat fish more than once a week. Sea foods are becoming increasingly contaminated by oil spills and concern has been expressed about the potential cancer risks. Cancerous growths have been found in a variety of free-swimming fish, including Dover sole and it is thought that oil-polluted waters may be the cause.
Research data from the United States confirms that hydrocarbons of the kind that can cause cancer in humans are concentrated by oysters and mussels in contaminated waters. No one has yet shown positively that cancer in man has resulted directly from the consumption of carcinogens in sea food but public health officials, in America at least, do not discount the possibility.
Submarine waste tips are another hazard. In 1945 the Allies ditched something like 20,000 tons of German chemical warfare material, nerve gas and mustard gas, in the Baltic. Fishermen handling nets and fish contaminated with the gas have been badly injured on several occasions. Although the containers were originally dumped 25 miles offshore in 300 feet of water, the tides and currents have shifted some into shallow areas only a few miles from


holiday coasts. Underwater currents and internal waves can make the bottom of the sea as restless as the top.
There was a very interesting case in California some years ago where the State Narcotics Agency dumped confiscated drugs in San Francisco Bay. It was so concerned about the possibility of being hi-jacked by drug pushers that it actually armed the vessel with submachine guns.
Exactly a week later bottles labelled "Metherdine" were washed ashore and the beach had to be staked out to prevent beach-combers from collecting the exotic jetsam. It happened nearer home. Last summer the Royal Navy dumped some ferric chloride containers near the Nab Tower, Portsmouth. A few weeks later several hundred canisters were washed up on the beaches of the Isle of Wight.
Legal controls over marine disposals in Britain are few and far between. In the case of ship-borne dumping, there are no statutory controls outside the three-mile limit. A voluntary arrangement is operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under which companies agree to keep to the spoil grounds and co-operate with effluent tests. But there are no sanctions and only a random sampling system is applied.
In common with the Jeger Committee's Report, and with legislative proposals in the United States and Scandinavian countries, I believe that the time has come to introduce proper supervision and control over ocean-dumping. I should like to see a compulsory system of licensing which would include power to ban the dumping of specific materials and to designate safe sites, with provision for enforcement and sanctions for the violation of the provisions.
The law is also defective for discharges along the coast. Sewage outfalls, outside estuaries and controlled waters, are not subject to any external control. I know that local authorities require loan sanction from the Department of the Environment for disposal schemes and I understand that this is not given unless the scheme avoids risk to public health and amenity. But in times of financial stringency there is inevitably considerable

pressure on Ministers to accept the cheaper scheme rather than the safer.
In the case of industrial effluent, the sea fisheries committees are empowered to regulate discharges which are detrimental to sea fishing and sea fish. But these powers cannot be used to control risks to public health, whether direct or indirect. It seems to me clear that we need some form of maritime authority or series of authorities to regulate consents within the coastal belt and prevent degradation of the environment.
I know that the Department of the Environment has all these matters under active consideration, and I am not asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for any firm commitments tonight. But I have four questions to ask him. First, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is currently examining our coastal waters and the state thereof. Will it comment on the health hazards of marine pollution in its report? Secondly, when granting loan sanctions for sea outfalls, do the Government agree that as much attention should be paid to the potential health hazards as to amenity and fishing interests? Thirdly, what support are the Government giving to the World Health Organisation in its attempts to identify the healths risks in this field and to draw up an internationally agreed list of proscribed substances? Fourthly, what arrangements have the Government made to keep a running check on the level of pollutants in sea fisheries and sea water, and are any safe limits to be laid down?
In considering the noxious and the obnoxious, it is wise to err on the side of caution. Rules and regulations that prove to be too severe can always be relaxed, whereas damage, once done, would take years to repair and could be irreversible. Italy should be an object lesson to us. Her coastal waters are already dead as a source of food and as an amenity. Nobody in his right mind would eat shellfish in Italy, and about 70 per cent. of her beaches are acknowledged as a health hazard. In the words of Professor Mortarino,
It is not a question of when the sea will be dead. For the Italians it has already happened.

11.28 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend the Member for


Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) has drawn attention to a very serious and topical problem, but, to put it into perspective, I am sure that he would agree that we must recognise that the vast majority of pollution is caused by urban sewage discharge and industrial discharge from shore.
I hope that in his reply the Under-Secretary of State will agree that it is important not to undertake any panic measure by restricting the use of ship or yacht w.cs. and, equally important, not to indulge in hysterical legislation about accidental spillage from tankers

11.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The brief intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) calls for little answer from me. I am sure that he will accept at once that the points to which he referred are things that my right hon. Friend must consider; but it would not be the practice of my right hon. Friend to adopt ill-considered or panic measures. Undoubtedly, the matters raised by my hon. and gallant Friend are matters of concern, and they will obviously be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend. I am glad to have the opportunity of replying to this debate. It is not always that we have an Adjournment debate on a subject of such massive international concern, and one in respect of which a Member of this House has made such efforts to acquaint himself with the problems involved.
There is not the slightest doubt that large-scale pollution arising from human activities is a comparatively recent phenomenon, although both coastal waters and oceans around the various shores of the world have been subjected through the centuries to pollution of one sort or another, and this is something which, with the development of industrial and human societies, has become an increasing problem.
It is true that our pollution, in many cases, makes no more than a marginal change in the state of the sea. But such a marginal addition could tip the equilibrium from safety towards risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) has spoken of the

risks, and I recognised at once that they are there. He rightly points out that the sea has a tremendous capacity—but not an unlimited capacity—to absorb many of the pollutant influences to which it is subjected.
Substances which can be broken down by the natural living processes of the sea—biodegradable pollutants, of which domestic sewage and sewage sludge are the chief examples—generally speaking have no more than local effects, because they are able to be absorbed in great degree. But non-biodegradable pollutants, which are sometimes present in very small concentrations in sewage, present a more serious problem, especially when they can be accumulated by living organisms through a food chain or some similar process. The examples that we are familiar with are mercury and organo-chlorine pesticides, such as D.D.T.—the most familiar example. More recently, polychlorinated biphenyls, which are used as plasticizers, have come to be recognised as being in the same category.
Differing points of view have been put forward on the crucial questions on how far the marine environment has so far been damaged and the outlook that we can expect in the future. There is certainly no lack of alarmist reports, but I must make it plain that in our view, whilst there are undoubtedly serious problems—such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred—many of the popularised accounts seem to go far beyond the basis of fact established and accepted in scientific literature. In our home waters there has been damage to fisheries at the mouths of some rivers, but fishing and fish nursery grounds are otherwise generally unaffected, even a little way outside these estuaries. My hon. Friend took a balanced and helpful view of the degree of the problem.
I agree that what we need is more basic knowledge of this subject. The Government attach particular importance to the work contained in the scientific reports of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—which has reported on the North Sea—and the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution on the wider aspects of the problem. Both these bodies have reported on the unsatisfactory features of the present position, and


their work is fundamental to the international activity about which I shall have something to say in a few moments.
Risks to health must be considered from two aspects; first, possible hazards arising from the consumption of contaminated food and, second, possible hazards from bathing in contaminated waters.
The main danger to human health which can arise from marine pollution is from the presence in fish or shellfish of heavy metals, bacteria or oil. This is quite distinct from the risk to fish stocks of pollutants which can kill or damage fish but involve no consumer risk.
The best known hazard arises from the consumption of shellfish from sewage-contaminated waters. The risk of contracting enteric fever or food poisoning from contaminated shellfish has been known for many years, and stringent precautions are taken by public health authorities. The Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations of 1934 give local authorities powers to make orders prohibiting the sale of shellfish from grounds which have been polluted unless the shellfish have been cleansed, sterilised or relaid in clean water. Frequent samples of shellfish are taken for bacteriological examination. The precautions have been highly successful, and cases of disease due to the consumption of contaminated shellfish, which used to be very common, are now rare. The consumption of other fish from waters contaminated by sewage has not been shown to be associated with any significant hazard.
My hon. Friend also referred to the plankton bloom of 1968. Such incidents are commonplace in some parts of the world but are rare in our waters. However, monitoring tests are carried out and medical officers of health are advised of the conditions under which harvesting and sale of shellfish should be suspended. Although this is something of which we must be constantly aware, there is no immediate anxiety for the United Kingdom.
Hazards to man arising from the chemical pollution of sea foods are rare. Attention has been focused on the importance of inorganic mercurial contamination of fish by the occurrence of cases of poisoning among fishermen and their

families in Japan who ate large quantities of fish from an industrially-contaminated area and by the subsequent American finding of a high methyl mercury content in canned tuna fish. Canned fish and other foods which are important in the national diet are being examined by Government laboratories of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which are also undertaking an extensive survey of fish caught by British ships in home and distant waters. So far as fish are concerned, this work extends the work which was already being done in these laboratories.
The new scheme is concentrating on methyl mercury but checks are also being made for the presence of other heavy metals, like cadmium. The Ministry hopes to publish results at half-yearly intervals, but if the monitoring scheme reveals any cause for concern action will be taken at once to protect the consumer.
The Minister of Agriculture announced in April that the survey was being extended to cover cadmium and lead. There have been reports of very unusually high levels of cadmium in limpets in the Bristol Channel, and these have, naturally, caused concern. The fact that these results are so much out of line with those which the Ministry had previously found around our coasts may be due to the different methods of measurement used or it may be that limpets happen to accumulate cadmium much faster than other organisms do.
As soon as these reports were published, the Fisheries Laboratory, as a matter of urgency, analysed shellfish from the South Wales coast, which is the only commercial fishery of any importance in the area. The results gave no cause for concern.
Oil contamination of the sea may result in the tainting of fish. This tainting has been regarded as a safeguard preventing the consumption of contaminated fish. In the small amounts present in such fish, mineral oils are not toxic apart from the fact that they may contain traces of carcinogenic hydrocarbons. I am aware of the fears about this which have developed recently, to which my hon. Friend refers. I am advised that it is most unlikely that there is any cause for concern, but the matter is being investigated and research is in progress.
My hon. Friend referred to the risks to bathers and holiday makers arising from sewage contamination of bathing beaches and inshore waters. The possible risks to health from sewage contamination were investigated by a committee of the public Health Laboratory Service in 1963, and the subject has been examined more recently by Mrs. Lena Jeger's Working Party on Sewage Disposal. Both committees confirmed that the risk of contracting any communicable disease on bathing beaches or through swimming in the sea around British coasts was very small. The probability of any person becoming infected in this way was very much smaller than the chance of contracting the same disease by the more usual means of infection within the community.
While accepting that there was no reason at present to believe that the risk of contracting communicable disease on bathing beaches was more than minimal and would not justify priority for further research, the Jeger Committee pointed out that it could not accept that dirty beaches were an inevitable part of the environment. That is something which I am sure the whole House accepts. Anything avoidable which detracted from personal relaxation and individual enjoyment of the coastline should be eliminated, and it must be a matter of great concern to my right hon Friend that this should be done as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend will have earned the gratitude of the House for raising this subject tonight. It covers a very wide range of matters of great concern to the Department. I have tried to deal with some of the points he has made. My right hon. Friend is continuing to conduct

various investigations into these matters and his conclusions on a number of subjects, particularly on the reports of the committees which have recently reported, are awaited. I am sure that the House will understand therefore, that I am precluded from making any immediate comment upon the likely conclusions to which my right hon. Friend will come.
I have already dealt with my hon. Friend's specific question about the monitoring of fish. On the allied question of the checks on sea water, my right hon. Friend said yesterday that he was considering what additional monitoring was necessary, and I cannot at present add to this. As regards my hon. Friend's other questions, I shall draw the attention of the Royal Commission to his remarks, and I can assure him that the possible health hazards are always of importance in the consideration of applications for loan sanctions for sea outfalls and that we support and welcome the contribution which the World Health Organisation makes to the scientific work of G.E.S.A.M.P.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving the House an opportunity to air this subject, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend is able to make his announcements, covering a wide range of subjects raised in this debate—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.